tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35757382106962204582017-12-10T19:14:22.963-08:00Thinking on the Blue RoadsOne of the best things about driving on the blue roads is that any time you want to you can pull over stop and just think about whatever strikes your fancy.J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-64996616835927550622017-11-25T11:39:00.000-08:002017-11-25T16:55:23.979-08:00Universal Basic Income<br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;<span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Once again a guest post to get started.</span></span></span><br /><br /><br /><div class="mts _50f8"><a class="_39g5" href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/nyah-wynne/thoughts-on-the-value-of-a-universal-basic-income/909942055746350"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #0b5394;">Nya<span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">h Wynne from Facebook</span></span></span></span></a></div><div class="mts _50f8">July 19, 2015 at 4:43am<span class="timelineUnitContainer"><a class="passiveImg fbAudienceHover timelineAudienceSelector" data-hover="tooltip" data-tooltip-content="Public" href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/nyah-wynne/thoughts-on-the-value-of-a-universal-basic-income/909942055746350#" role="button"><img alt="" class="img" height="12" src="https://www.facebook.com/rsrc.php/v2/ym/r/LXVsRcy6-H6.png" width="12" /></a></span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="_5k3v _5k3w clearfix"><div><div><br />The biggest reason I support UBI (Universal Basic Income) has nothing to do with our possible automated future, as labor becomes less essential, or at least as we need much less of it, though that's a great reason to support it. It's not even about eliminating poverty or making the unemployment rate a non-issue, though those are very good reasons too.<br /><br />The reason I want a UBI is to make work at least -technically- optional. I want this because so long as work is not optional, so long as it is mandatory, it is coercive. I want UBI so that every low wage worker whose boss screws them on hours, who reprimands them for taking sick days, who asks them to work too fast in unsafe conditions (see the current fast-food lawsuit), every young employee whose boss secretly grabs their ass while no one is looking, who's constantly making lewd comments, or racist comments, or any other sort of hateful bullshit... So that every employee who finds themselves trapped in the fiefdom of some petty little tyrant of a boss, which is actually The Majority Of Low End Workers, so that they can say:<br /><br />"TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT"<br /><br />So that they can really, truly, meaningfully walk the fuck away. And not have it mean they end up on the streets or their kids starve or they find themselves turning tricks to keep the water running and the lights on. Or for that matter just ending up in yet another job with a slightly different petty tyrant. And they can do this, deal with this, without having to deal with lawyers or Union Reps, who though are better than -not- having them it'd be nicer to just be able to do it ourselves. Because if -enough- of them (us) say 'NO' to this petty fucking bullshit, then firms will be forced to stop letting the petty bullshit happen (those who fail to will simply not get workers), and work in general will end up less awful for everyone.<br /><br />Because the ability to say 'NO' to someone who's actively abusing you... that should be pretty high on the list of 'Liberties' worth defending. In my mind.</div></div></div></blockquote><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Almost as important is what a mentor at Pan Am called "Fuck You Money" that puts you in a position to as he put it "To do your job right."&nbsp; If you are dependent on your job for your day to day lifestyle, you can't afford to disagree meaningfully with your bosses to do what is right instead of what is expedient. UBI gives you the safety net along with your Fuck You money you saved from your productive work to get the next job to use your skills properly.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;The economic argument for a UBI is that it is "outside" money to low income people who spend locally for necessities provided by mainly other low income people. The bodega proprietor, (there would be food trucks on every corner) and other neighborhood business would thrive and economic benefits would trickle UP to landlords, food truck lessors, food truck builders, etc. They might even buy a solar food truck with a Powerwall 2 from Tesla if they are really successful.&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Entry level jobs and indeed all jobs would be supplemental to UBI and under conventional income tax theory would be taxed progressively.&nbsp; The big difference would be that entry level jobs would be optional so wages and working conditions must be attractive enough that people would want to work.&nbsp; Most people would rather be productive, whether as an artisan, an entrepeneur, or as a service worker as long as they feel that they are being useful to their community but they won't do it without reasonable compensation with the UBI as a backup.&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Creativity is a fundamental drive for humans once they get beyond subsistence.&nbsp; Cave people drew on the walls of the cave, ordinary pots and pans became works of art in ancient and indigenous cultures.&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">The key to success for an artisan or an entrepreneur is being able to fail without consequences to one's family.&nbsp; A trust fund is the traditional back up for them, but that limits the pool of creative and risk taking to rich people.&nbsp; Imagine the creative surge if anyone with a dream could pursue it.&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">While there are many couch potatoes passively consuming entertainment, due to the economic fact that they can afford nothing else, how many would be freed up for more creative expressions if most of their life was not spent dealing with subsistence needs. &nbsp; </span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;People work. Even if it is only knitting at a boring meeting, and some of it will rise to saleable art. Unpaid volunteer workers now could choose to be idle but work anyway. Also most people I know in the class of comfortable retired people are still working hard at something paid or otherwise. Why would that not become a way of life for those with no saleable skills?&nbsp; Some people living on UBI might need TLC, companionship, shopping, and other services not covered by UBI that neighbors not forced to work long hours could easily supply. Note the win-win here, volunteer caregivers might well need some of that TLC and companionship as well.</span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;The few couch potatoes living off the stipend are probably just as well off the streets and not making trouble to survive. They still are consumers<span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">.</span></span> They eat, buy couches, TVs, and pay rent.&nbsp; If we make the "idle" comfortable enough to live a decent, if not easy, life what they do with <span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">their life </span>is of no consequence to society.</span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp; </span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #990000;">&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;"> Optional work made possible by UBI for supplemental income (taxed) is chosen in a competitive market where skills are rewarded.&nbsp; People will work at something meaningful to them whether it is needlework, carving, artisans of all kinds, even coders and inventors. If the work is saleable they get extra income to support the local economy and the Government. If not they can try harder or learn to do something else.&nbsp;</span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp; Those who want to work will have plenty of opportunities under UBI. There are many jobs that require human input. But a job, which is working for someone else will be only one option, and an option at that. Employers will have to compete on working conditions as well as pay to attract those who wish to work. If a restaurant owner or retailer needs people, hesh will have to make the job more attractive than opening a lunchroom or storefront shop. <br /><br />&nbsp;Job availability will exceed demand, given the "Be your own boss" drive most people have. If a tradesperson with a truck can supplement UBI working for herm neighbors the job premium would have to be very attractive to drag herm across town instead. <br /><br /><br />&nbsp;Economically any income above UBI is disposable income.&nbsp; People normally spend disposable income locally in the less affluent segment of the society.&nbsp; So both UBI which typically will be spent in its entirety locally and any supplemental income will have a large economic multiplier for the community which will generate more marginal jobs and disposable income. &nbsp;</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">---------------------------&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">More on http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2016/04/collection-post-for-basic-income-and.html </span></span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-10346555558042903762017-11-24T15:32:00.000-08:002017-11-26T13:07:15.949-08:00UBI and Economics <span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br />&nbsp;GDP is ultimately people buying goods and services from other people. Somebody has to flip those burgers the basic income recipients are buying. <br /><br />&nbsp;Since low income people spend locally and buy from people they know (not robots) the income from outside the local economy stays in the local economy and all are better off.&nbsp; The multiplier effect of the basic income dollar for a relatively closed local economy without box stores or Franchises to siphon off money is nearly 3 times.&nbsp; The burger flipper in a local lunchroom is paid a competitive if relatively low wage in addition to the basic income or hesh wouldn't work.&nbsp; Hesh spends most of herm income including UBI on local goods and services employing other local workers, creating more local demand for those goods and services and more workers to produce and vend them.&nbsp; <br /><br />&nbsp;&nbsp;Assuming UBI and Medicare for All, now dead ex-urban and rural suburbs will become vibrant villages of local commerce and art most of which will generate excess funds for local amenities. UBI is an external source of resources for the community which will be subject to the economic multiplier by those providing services to the UBI recipients.&nbsp; Dispersal would solve the "BMR" housing issue as only those needing to be close to cities would compete for high end suburbs and high density city housing.&nbsp; Note that minimum wage jobs in high density areas would no longer be attractive to distant UBI recipients.&nbsp; There are many things they could do with the costs in time and money of a multi-hour commute. </span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;UBI should be an EFT deposit into a local bank or credit union.&nbsp; National Banks should not be permitted to accept UBI transfers.&nbsp; Local banks and credit unions could invest in housing and business loans for residents of the local area.&nbsp; Large metro areas could be divided into historical and/or ethnic communities for the purpose of defining "Local" for this restriction.&nbsp; </span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br />&nbsp;The car based infrastructure will once again become a valuable resource for infrequent visits to friends and relatives and occasional visits to urban centers for shopping and entertainment.&nbsp; The car will remain as the personal status symbol for rich and poor alike.&nbsp; Although it will be autonomous and electric it will still use the roads and freeways unclogged by commuter traffic.&nbsp; That racing striped Camaro shell will be on a Spark chassis, but hesh will be as devoted to it as before with the big Hemi.<br /><br />&nbsp;Some basic income recipients will use their time to pursue a dream of artisan goods production; a local service like a band, restaurant, or performance venue; or a mercantile service.&nbsp; Some will succeed and become tourist magnets generating outside dollars for the community. <br /><br />&nbsp;Assuming an income tax the multiplier will be reduced a bit from a pure subsistence economy, but if the tax rate is progressive the reduction in the multiplier should be minimal for in community services as these services will be provided on narrow margins as the providers will be recipients of UBI as well. </span></span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-81752335675647886532017-11-24T15:18:00.000-08:002017-11-24T15:19:04.808-08:00Art and Artists <blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; float: none; font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"></span></div></blockquote><br />&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"> If you cannot evaluate art without evaluating the artist you don't understand art.&nbsp; I specifically avoid, indeed shun, biographical data about artists.&nbsp; If their art is expiation for their monstrous private lives perhaps it is expiation for the monstrous private lives of all of us.&nbsp; Their art is their legacy.&nbsp; Their private lives should be buried with them and never discussed while they are alive.&nbsp; </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; float: none; font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"></span><span style="font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , &quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"></blockquote>&nbsp; <span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">An artist and herm art are two entirely separate and distinct entities in all cultures.&nbsp; The art may live and be meaningful long after the artist has returned to dust.&nbsp; While it is fun to argue about which composers of famous religious music were atheists, the fact remains that the music they composed is sung and revered by believers in any culture affected by the religion depicted in the composition.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is a logic in this; he is unbiased - he hates all creative people equally.&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"> </span></span>Lazarus Long, <i>Time Enough For Love</i>,&nbsp; Robert A Heinlein, 1973.</blockquote>&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">The easiest thing a lazy critic can focus on is some private life peccadillo (or worse) to avoid entirely herm work as a critic of evaluating the art to help the rest of us sort out the good from the bad. &nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;The current trend even extends to Jefferson's "all men are created equal" as written by a slave holder who even had children by a favored slave.&nbsp; He had no choice in his culture. That he could transcend his culture to create a better world where all are equal (even though we are not there yet after 200+ years) speaks volumes about his character not to mention the character of his critics.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #990000;"></span><span style="color: #990000;"></span>&nbsp; <span style="color: #990000;"></span><br /><span style="color: #990000;"></span><br />J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-39453480139180574722017-11-03T18:30:00.001-07:002017-11-03T18:30:34.376-07:00Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will<dl id="comments-block"><dd><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Random with sophisticated feedback can produce quite meaningful results. Think random error in gene duplication with the feedback of selection and one gets a meaningful result of a new successful species, or a meaningful result of a lethal mutation. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Cause and effect have very little to do with mind/brain function. Essentially the sensory stimulus is random or at least so voluminous that the first cut by the mind can be thought of as eliminating data points that do not conform to an existing pattern in the nerve cells feeding data to the brain, in other words eliminating worthless random stimuli. Apparently the first cut in the retina is an edge. The first feedback loop is that an edge might be useful and the brain 'requests' data from around the edge. If the data around the edge form the capital 'I' the mind says 'Pay attention this is critical data!' Another feedback loop may say forget it it is just a bridge girder, and the mind moves on, and the cause bridge girder resembling an 'I' has no lasting effect. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">The important functions of the brain/mind are these feedback loops that correlate fresh input with existing data to reinforce or weaken the data points. Trying to identify cause and effect is an endless chase through the feedback loops unless one reasonably shortstops the process as the mind does and says this stimulus reproducibly is associated with this response and is a cause and effect relationship.</span></span></dd><dd><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Random is not an either/or condition. In fact rationality might be defined as reasonable responses to random events that occur both internally to the brain and externally as in spilled cumin in the curry. (Should I eat it or spit it out?) The brain has sophisticated feedback that evaluates odd inputs either internal or external to see if it is important to current events in the mind.&nbsp; Many millions of years of separating out dangerous random signals from similar random signals that are normal patterns in the environment make dealing with the randomness of the environment a critical survival trait.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">The brain's internal random juxtapositions of thought patterns is the essence of human creativity and free will. A vaguely remembered dream of a snake biting its tail juxtaposed to a vexing structural chemical problem may be responsible for modern organic chemistry. One can play the determinism game all night long and say August Kekulé had the dream because of a logical train of subconscious thought on his problem, but the waking correlation of the dream to the problem at hand seems to be deterministically improbable to the point of ridiculousness. The mind might be envisioned as random thought processes that reinforce to produce meaningful and useful concepts that can be used to manage one's gestalt of self and manage one's living purposefully.&nbsp; Thought processes that do not fit into that matrix are either rejected outright or if deemed to be possibly significant by the mind are relegated to the memory for future use as needed, (don't ask me how the mind knows they are useful I am not that smart.) But I do know that the mind is extremely versatile in processing that endless stream of data. In the western world any activity that takes one out of the mainstream of living, a walk in the woods, creating a poem, or a haiku, artistic activities, thoughtful writing, etc. all have the effect of freeing the mind from managing a purposeful life.&nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Free will is simply sampling those thought processes that do not immediately fit into the matrix, figuring out why they seemed to be important and see if somehow they can modify the matrix to make it more robust and/or useful.&nbsp; This is the purpose of meditative techniques that take one out of the life that the matrix controls, in effect setting it aside and trying to construct an alternative from the stored data. The Buddhists have this process as a main focus of their religion and by focusing on an essentially meaningless existence temporarily let all these meaningful and useful concepts jumble around to see if a more useful gestalt can be constructed.</span></span></dd><dd><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></dd><dd><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;&nbsp;The downside of this feedback is that the current events in the mind can be conditioned to reject odd inputs that contradict certain thought patterns that may control behavior. This conditioning is started by caregivers in children to enable them to behave correctly in their principle social milieu. "All I really need to know I learned in Kindergarten" Robert Fulghum.&nbsp; As kindergartens are embedded in the society of the child's parents it merely continues the conditioning started by the parents.&nbsp; This early conditioning is almost impossible to ignore, but fortunately human teens and young adults are open to other social structures and tend to question their early conditioning and some can pick and choose which behaviors are useful and which might be modified.&nbsp; Much of this exploration is done through reading and visual media, which is why those with a vested interest in the childhood conditioning like churches discourage undirected reading and manage visual media for their own ends.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">In many social situations the conditioning becomes so strong, that random inputs that are contrary to the conditioning are rejected before they can even make into the consciousness.&nbsp; Both political beliefs and religious beliefs can fall into this category. &nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;I am quite comfortable with the randomness of living.&nbsp; I think causality is the exception rather than the rule.&nbsp; In my view free will is expressed by how we react to the random events that color our lives including that huge one of our inevitable death. Our lives began with the random meeting of gametes, and random events like finding and losing friends, and lovers define how we choose to live. I live my life intentionally, in that I choose which random events I wish to react to and how I do so. Free will is not even an issue; there is no compulsion to do anything I choose not to do. Although things may happen that I must choose to react to. But there is always a choice. When the green car came flying over the center barrier into my lane, I could choose to do nothing and experience the fun of a high speed head on, or I could choose to steer as close to the barrier as I could. One might say the choice was forced, but it was still a choice. Making good choices is the essence of living in a random world.</span></span><br /><br /><br /></dd><dd></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd></dd></dl>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-58027237049884662472017-09-16T12:54:00.003-07:002017-10-28T19:43:02.857-07:00Monogamy<br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Monogamy is not a description of a relationship. It is a description of a reproductive strategy.&nbsp; </span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Polyamory is default for prepubescent children and non-adults and should be encouraged with the usual precautions for STDs.&nbsp;&nbsp; In societies where women breed shortly after puberty other standards apply but given modern contraception strategies for men and women polyamory should be the rule until parenting is contemplated.&nbsp; I am not talking hetero only here especially prepubescent and early teen sexuality.&nbsp; Sow your wild oats to your hearts content on any infertile ground of either gender to determine what kind of sexuality makes sense for ones settled years which may end up to be childless polyamory.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;">If no children are planned monoamory may well be toxic. My generation gave the world the conceopt of going steady as early as high school, that is, dating only a single partner as long as the relationship lasts. The strain this puts on relationship building is overwhelming as sexuality, having fun on a date, and commitment to a single other who initially you may not know well does not work well.&nbsp; Even more pressure is on the relationship if pregnancy before marriage is a violation of the norm as it was when contraception was limited to condoms.&nbsp; Even with reliable contraception for women trying to combine sexuality, companionship, fun, and mental stimulation into a single relationship seems to put too much strain on both partners.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Most people contemplating children hetero or homo are monogamous as a tried and proven stable environment for raising children. It is not the only way. Polygamy as usually practiced one male several females seems to work in some cultures as the women share the child raising with the male as a resource provider and impregnator.&nbsp; Single parenting is outrageously difficult, but possible.&nbsp; An absent partner providing resources does help.&nbsp; <br />&nbsp;</span></span><br /><br /><div id="footer-wrapper"></div>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-22020166109608094282017-08-27T11:04:00.001-07:002017-08-27T19:09:00.668-07:00Autonomous Cars and the Future of Cities<br /><blockquote>(Mary Sperling) claimed her car from the robopark, guided it up the ramp and set the controls for the North Shore. The car waited for a break in the traffic, then dived into the high-speed stream and hurried north. Mary settled back for a nap….awakened by the jangle of the emergency alarm and by the speedster slowing to a stop… “All cars resume local control….” Methuselah's Children, Robert A Heinlein, (1941) or 1958.&nbsp;&nbsp;</blockquote><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">With autonomous or even semi-autonomous cars in 120mph+ pelotons on existing freeways and Musk 120mph skates in tunnels in LA, whole metro areas are sprawlsville.&nbsp; The American life style will not be changed to urban living.&nbsp; Ford, General Motors, and all the rest will still be around in 2100 promoting sprawl.&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br />&nbsp;The car is the most important surviving public status symbol, and Americans at least are not going to give that up.&nbsp; They will drive less especially locally but providing rides between urban nodes will still be an important status indicator.&nbsp; Cities, especially new cities, will evolve out of the suburbs with high density urban nodes around regional amenities with complete urban services, restaurants, service establishments and high density housing at all price points for those who choose to live and possibly work in an urban node.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;The majority of the population will still be economically and ethnically segregated in single family homes and low density apartments in the suburbs, exurbs and now dead rural towns. The current pattern for office commercial segregated in suburban campuses will continue for the foreseeable future. Even working class cars will be high speed semi-autonomous and urban nodes will still require high density autonomous parking for residents and visitors. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /><br />&nbsp;Freeways will evolve to narrower lanes restricted to autonomous vehicles, with high speed lanes running in pelotons for efficiency and throughput.&nbsp; Current freeways of three lanes or more with a breakdown lane in the center will in the near future convert to two or more high speed lanes, one transition lane and leave one wide lane with a breakdown lane for non-autonomous cars at existing speed limits and entrance and exit.&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br />&nbsp;Autonomous cars will park in high density parking lots on floors limited to small SUVs by floor spacing, served by elevators.&nbsp; Garages for autonomous vehicles only will be constructed over a major intersection with an existing freeway which is already served by transit and close to developed commercial or urban centers.&nbsp; The garage may be built over the freeway.&nbsp; Pedestrian and bicycle access is over the existing sidewalk space on the cross street and transit access over a lane of the cross street.&nbsp; Cars will enter from freeway access ramps to car lanes inside the garage next to the pedestrian/bikeway.&nbsp; Driverless autonomous cabs would be available at the freeway nodes for those needing them.&nbsp;</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;See also http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2017/05/autonomous-cars-and-cities.html </span></span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-64719912526511501612016-09-06T10:04:00.000-07:002017-12-08T17:52:07.633-08:00Religious Satire - You Can't Lay it On Too Thick.<br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;If the Jahwist had not been the Disney of her time it is likely we wouldn't even have a Bible, or Torah.&nbsp; Can you imagine worshiping a book compiled from P, E, and R if you left out J? All the good stories that are remembered from the Pentateuch are J's&nbsp; It is hard enough to wade through all that crap with the leavening of J.&nbsp; All that would be left is a soggy matzoth.</span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span>&nbsp; <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: black;">If you read the Jahwist stories as a coherent whole</span></span></span> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919" target="_blank">The Book of J</a><span style="color: black;"> <span style="color: #cc0000;">is a good place to start, although extracting them from your favorite scripture is also a reasonable endeavor, you will find an ironic reading of the oral tradition of the Hebrew people in which the male figures especially Yahweh are generally putzes that can't do anything very well.&nbsp;&nbsp;The first Jahwist story, the famous creation story, God and Adam stumble around being dicks while mother Eve brings wisdom in the form of knowledge of good and evil without the intervention of any God to humankind.&nbsp; This pisses off God and Adam, who was trying to push Eve around using God's edicts as as a lever, and they blame her for discovering this boon. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-6662872949283852209" itemprop="description articleBody"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><a href="http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/21023989/The_birth_of_Eve?post_num=152#380836485" target="_blank">The birth of Eve - Beliefnet:</a></span></span></span></span> <br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">"Agnostic" wrote:</span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Clearly Eve was a divine creation, separate from Adam. Eve was created in the divine image of God Herself. In contrast, Adam evolved from primates with lower intelligence. It should be obvious that women are innately superior to males.</span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">The Bible shows this. The very name for 'the Lord' is Yahvah. Eve in Hebrew is Chavah. If you look at the original Hebrew letters, they are even more nearly identical. </span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Each time a female is born, it is another divine creation. Males, on the other hand, bear far too much similarity to apes of lesser intelligence. It should be obvious.</span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">The Genesis story shows God leading the animals and beasts to Adam for a potential mate, because Adam was just an animal. Adam almost chose a dog for a mate. But God, in Her infinite wisdom, realized Adam was not capable of living without divine help, so God gave a replica of Herself to watch over Adam.</span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">This is clear from the Hebrew word, usually translated as 'help mate' It is 'Ezer,' a word which does mean help. But in the Bible, it only appears as a term for God Herself, or for Eve. David says, 'God is my Help (Ezer)' Eve, the Woman, was Adam's Help (Ezer). It was Adam who needed help, divine assistance. Eve was provided. She did not evolve. She had a separate divine creation.</span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Scientists generally are correct. Adam evolved. But religion is also correct, Eve was a Divine Creation. All the violence is the world is caused by men, who have barely evolved past their lower primate origins. Even with divine assistance from women, they often are unable to advance beyond their atavistic nature."</span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #990000;">J'C: In light of</span> </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Book-J-David-Rosenberg/dp/0679736247">Harold Bloom's theory that "J" was a woman</a>, <span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #990000;">the irony in Genesis 2 is, with this post, beautifully explained.&nbsp;</span></span></span></span></span></span></div></blockquote><div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-3"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="post-location"></span></span></span></span></div><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: maroon;"><span style="color: maroon;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">&nbsp;If you read J's stories with an intelligent woman author in mind the misogyny of the traditional oral history is clear from the ironic retelling of the Garden story as a prime example.&nbsp; "The woman made me do it."&nbsp; The woman is the only reasonable person in the whole tale.&nbsp; Both God and Adam look like idiots.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span>&nbsp; <span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: maroon;"><span style="color: maroon;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Unfortunately J's stories becme </span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">incorporated in the Pentateuch as the "Word of God" mixed up with P, E, &amp; R and the irony and satire got lost as proof-texting was discovered by the (male) preachers and priests and the march of the Patriarchs became unstoppable. </span>&nbsp;</span></span> </span></span>&nbsp; </span></span>&nbsp;</span></span></span> </span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: maroon;">The entire Book of Mormon is a joke perpetrated on an annoyingly pious young man in New England by his gay, atheist friend Walt Whitman.&nbsp; The Mormons suppress literary analysis like wor<span style="font-family: inherit;">d</span> count and stylistic and content parallels but they cannot suppress any literate person from comparing the Book of Mormon with Leaves of Grass on a boring few day stay in a Salt Lake City hotel.&nbsp; </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>&nbsp; <span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: maroon;">I read the Book of Mormon on the first night of that boring stay (no booze, no friends) and could not miss the resemblance to a satire of the Bible I wrote in High School.&nbsp; I gave myself 20 lashes with the monster's noodly appendages for not naming my angel Moroni, but chalked it up to a lack of literary genius.&nbsp; The next day I got my copy of Leaves of Grass out of my suitcase and read it side by side with the Book of Mormon.&nbsp; No brainer - same author.&nbsp; I would not put it past Whitman to have given his friend "magic glasses" and told him where in the woods to dig.&nbsp; I am sure Whitman kept a copy or revision of his satire and cleaned up parts of it for his future writings.&nbsp; I still have mine.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span>&nbsp; <span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: maroon;">It is amazing to me that the LDS even refuse to notice the satire of the name of one of their major saints but treat it as part of the Gospel they live by.&nbsp; The whole BoM if read without belief is a brilliant satire of Christianity. &nbsp;</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span>&nbsp; </span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: maroon;">I know less about Islam than Judaism and Christianity, but the proof-texting by the Imams and other "Islamic" leaders from the Pentateuch and Muhammad is obvious to any reasonable observer.&nbsp; Unfortunately I do not read Arabic and </span></span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: maroon;">therefore </span></span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: maroon;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">cannot understand the context of the proof-texting.&nbsp; I suspect the context is similar to Jewish and Christian scripture, and is as ironic in its character. &nbsp;&nbsp;</span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span><br /><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-6662872949283852209" itemprop="description articleBody"><div class="date-outer"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br /><div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="4256101620753389727"></a></span></span> </div></div></div></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br /><div class="blog-feeds"><div class="feed-links"><br /></div></div><div id="footer-wrapper"></div></div><span class="post-author vcard"><span class="fn" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><a class="g-profile" data-gapiattached="true" data-gapiscan="true" data-onload="true" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654" rel="author" title="author profile"><span itemprop="name"></span></a></span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-345184791021427002016-07-07T09:38:00.000-07:002017-11-27T10:46:09.956-08:00Gender Inclusive Pronouns<br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Back in the mid 20th Century the feminist movement tried with some success to ban the generic use of "men" and "man" as in "All men are created equal." In current vernacular they have succeeded quite well. In some Churches led by UUs they even succeeded in removing male references to God in large part by eliminating the pronoun altogether, resulting in some rather weird hymnody with repetitive use of God and some strangled syntax to eliminate references directly to God. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;I was frequently involved in God discussions at that time and found the effort of avoiding the Pronouns for God too much effort and found the shock of using Hesh and Herm in reference to God a useful result in my discussions. Typically it generated the assertion that God was male and that the proper pronouns were He and His. This generally derailed the discussion into a useful discussion of God's testosterone levels.&nbsp;</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;One of the first things that offended me when I found out that other people who believed in God believed that God was The Lord (masculine) and He/His were interchangeable with God.&nbsp; I was still in the scatological humor stage at the time and gleefully referred to God as Sheheit.&nbsp; Making myself unpopular in some circles, but most of my friends were at the most religious agnostics, so I didn't catch much flack. &nbsp; And when I did I would always correct myself to Hesheit.&nbsp; I outgrew the scatology but still refused to even think of God as He.</span></span> </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;When I came to social media I continued the practice and for a long time linked on the words to a discussion on the Gender and Sexuality boards. When I began to see "hesh" and "hir" or "herm" in the popular literature without explanation, (I admit to noticing each time) I quit linking particularly on atheist and the UU boards as everyone could figure out what I meant without the link from context although fundamentalist Christians and language conservatives continue to protest its use in reference to God. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp; I also eliminated the gender specific pronouns from my vocabulary as a general pronoun and use "hesh" and "herm" as my pronouns of choice whether the gender of the referent is known or not. This is particularly useful in calling attention to gender specific terms like "Actor," Waitress," or "Chairman." Traditionalists be damned. They need their consciousness raised. If it jars their reading or hearing of the term, they still need the consciousness raising. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;More recently I have been using the terms when the referent is of known gender but the gender is not relevant in context. Reference to the author of a scientific paper was beat into my head by my then wife whose papers in a male chauvinist academic profession were referred to as "HER" papers as if they were therefore less important than "his" papers. They in fact were less important than "his" papers, even though in general they were significantly better. It is no accident that women in science generally publish with initials only. If men are offended by having to think about gender specific nouns, too bad. They need to. Particularly the sexist males. They can be sure I intended to insult them with the gender inclusive pronoun.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;As for the ESL issue, some languages particularly Asian languages are non-sexist in that the pronouns are non-specific. I live with Asians and have become used to hearing "she" and "her" being used as a pronoun for anybody. I don't bother to correct them as they are on my side. I suspect Asians would have more trouble with "he" and "she" in writing and speech than they would be with "hesh" and "herm." </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Other languages are inherently sexist. I was at the installation of a new department head who couldn't even introduce his staff because his native language didn't have a word for a female colleague. He did all right with the men, but the female who outranked the men caused an embarrassing for all search for an appropriate honorific. </span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-71598793709052849412016-07-06T13:24:00.000-07:002017-08-15T18:13:32.087-07:00Gender Inclusive Thinking and Reading<br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;I invented the gender inclusive pronouns "Hesh" and "Herm" very early in life, and discovered that they helped me think about a supernatural power in a sympathetic way that was impossible with the testosterone poisoned "He."&nbsp; Even trying to insert God in place of the male pronoun every time didn't work too well.&nbsp; The testosterone is frequently implied by context.&nbsp; By college I had learned to think of everyone as hesh rather than he or she even when it was important to tell the difference.&nbsp; It was the first step to radical humanism as once I began to think of people as hesh it was hard to create differences along any lines since the major pervasive division on gender lines carried over from the patriarchal social system we inherited from God was obliterated in my mind.&nbsp; When you can't even think in gender terms, differentiation on other human variables is nearly impossible.&nbsp; Try thinking about that "other" person without gender and note what it does to your mind. &nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;For the record, I was a strictly heterosexual male as interested in the hormonal needs only satisfied by a heterosexual female as anybody else.&nbsp; But thinking of a woman as hesh in spite of the obvious delightful differences did change the way I related to women from the first contact in class or on the street to very intense relationships.&nbsp; Even my parenting partner was early on a partner with benefits rather than a sexual person. &nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;When reading scientific literature I never noticed the scientist's name, by policy, until it was necessary for reference and even then as a footnote on the back of the index card.&nbsp; Yep, I used them.&nbsp; Any gender related references were automatically changed to hesh/herm mentally and on the card. &nbsp; I learned a lot that way.&nbsp; Some highly recommended papers turned to crap when the DWM was turned into hesh. Or LM for that matter.&nbsp;</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;I have since changed policy a bit as the cutting edge scientists in my family educated me that for a woman to succeed in any meritocracy they had to be twice as good as the average male.&nbsp; It follows that an accepted paper by a woman has to have twice the chances of being worth reading as one by the average man.&nbsp; Similarly for professional choices.&nbsp; Even though I think of them as hesh in the interview I will give interview preference to a woman given a bunch of equivalent CVs or Resumes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Applying the same thinking to reading and rereading fiction has been enlightening and fascinating.&nbsp; I mentally reassign a gender ambiguous name to the major characters and thinking of all as hesh.&nbsp; In the mandatory sex scenes some role reversals are needed but it is surprising how often they are not.&nbsp; It is amusing to think of a sex partner as trans occasionally.&nbsp; </span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-44206929544653435952016-04-16T09:38:00.000-07:002017-11-09T09:59:40.999-08:00Humanism in the Real World<br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br />&nbsp;Strength is a prerequisite for humanism. If you don't believe in yourself you cannot believe in others.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;A humanist treats all people as individuals with the dignity and respect they have earned as a human being regardless of any group they may have been born into, chosen, or indoctrinated into at some point in their lives.&nbsp; A humanist recognizes that humans come with a lot of baggage some of which may not be functional in a modern society, but a humanist recognizes that it is what the individual has unpacked from that baggage which is important, not the baggage itself.&nbsp; Many men and women from religious and social indoctrination carry a heavy load of baggage of xenophobia, paternalism and misogyny, but to the extent that they have or have not left some of it behind, the humanist will accord respect for the human accordingly.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;A major misconception about humanism is that humanists are incapable of judging other humans and treat all humans equally.&nbsp; As a first assumption this should be true, but from Tom Lehrer's intro to <i>National Brotherhood Week</i></span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: &quot;times&quot; , &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">I am sure we all agree we ought to love one another, and I know that there are people that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.</span></blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;The real skill in humanism is using behavioral cues rather than assumptions about the baggage that the person appears to be carrying in deciding how to deal with the encounter.&nbsp; This is not to say that awareness of the baggage is unimportant in interpreting behavioral cues, but it is the cue properly interpreted rather than the baggage that should dictate the human response.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;In dealing with a member of a discriminated against class the humanist is sensitive to and tries to defuse any justified resentment, but accepts it as a reasonable reaction and tries to find human commonalities to build a humanistic relationship on.&nbsp; Always with the recognition that triggers exist, and can be inadvertently used.&nbsp; Accepting responsibility for not avoiding triggers is an important part of defusing them. &nbsp; As an example if I am caught holding a door for a feminist, and she objects that she can do it herself* I simply apologize for being in her way.&nbsp; I have stimulated conversations with more than one feminist non-acquaintance that way.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;A note on the current bigoted trend of "Color Blindness."&nbsp; A humanist celebrates the diversity of coloration, face and eye shape, and the cultural traditions associated with that diversity in the human race.&nbsp; Their history is our history and no group has a lock on superiority in anything.&nbsp; Humans are "tribal" animals and we naturally gravitate to the lore and traditions of our tribe but doing so by ignoring or denigrating the lore and traditions of the other tribes' leads only to hate and bigotry. &nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Members of an identifiable group must also be aware of the baggage that they carry as a member of the group, even though they have done their best to unpack and discard the worst of it.&nbsp; As an example I am a member of the white, male, privileged, MBA, financially secure group.&nbsp; In other words the assholes that run the businesses that run the government and oppress the working class and the disadvantaged.&nbsp; I have diligently tried to avoid the social disabilities that come with the class of privileged white males.</span></span><br /><ul><li><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Sexism/misogyny.&nbsp;</span></span></li><li><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Patriarchal assumptions.&nbsp; </span></span></li><li><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Being a winner rather than a loser.&nbsp;</span></span></li><li><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Refusing to cooperate or collaborate as an equal. </span></span></li><li><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Rejection of active parenting. That is marrying a woman to do the job and accepting the costs of child support as freedom to change my mind. Or simply fucking someone to "carry a seed" and not really caring about whether that seed grows properly or not as long as it is born.</span></span></li><li><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Using material success as a measure of worth. "He* who dies with the most toys wins."&nbsp;</span></span></li><li><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">Hiring, bribing, or intimidating others to cover one's ass in all of the above. &nbsp; </span></span></li></ul><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;Unpacking religious and social baggage is a difficult and frequently impossible human task.&nbsp; Castigating all those who have not done so because of their baggage is neither functional nor humanistic.&nbsp; Those who have managed to unpack and leave behind some of the more dysfunctional bags need all the respect and help from others they can get, and not be thrown under the baggage bus.&nbsp; For those on the bus education and ostracism are about the only options for a rational humanist, but these options are generational in impact, and those individuals on the bus that have unpacked a bit are critical to the education role, and deserve all the dignity and respect they can find if they manage to leave the bus even for a short holiday.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;As humans are tribal animals tribal religious baggage is the most difficult for a humanist to deal with.&nbsp; Telling Malala or any Muslim expatriate that she must lose the hijab if she is to be credible as a feminist is one of most dysfunctional tactics I have run into recently.&nbsp; It certainly is a powerful statement of the misogyny of Muslim men, but until you change the men, we are talking generations here; the hijab is a rational response to that misogyny.&nbsp; Incidentally fundamentalist Christian and Jewish men are just as misogynist, but society has made more progress in changing their behavior which is the first step in changing their thinking.&nbsp; It is the men who must change the men to enable the women to feel more comfortable with relaxing the dress codes. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp;I have always selected female professionals when available when I had a choice, using the assumption that a female had to be twice as good as the average man to even have a chance in any professional role.&nbsp; That is based on the reality that the average man who is successful in a professional position may be far to the left on the competence curve and still be able to compete in a paternalistic society.&nbsp; Sorry, men, half of you are from the bottom half of your class.&nbsp; Even in professional schools where women face discrimination even today.&nbsp; Factoring in the discriminatory entrance barriers it is easy to believe that more than half the men end up in the bottom half of the class.&nbsp; The few women who graduate are generally near the top as they have the Mrs. to fall back on if the going is too tough.&nbsp; Men are always suckers for intelligent, competent women and the sex bait is difficult to resist, even if a Mrs. is the hook.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">&nbsp; Humanism is a fundamental change in internal attitude that may or may not be accomplished in even a single lifetime.&nbsp; It is simply a constant struggle to avoid categorization.&nbsp; A personal anecdote may be illustrative.&nbsp; When I have the choice I select among women medical professionals for care.&nbsp; Nonetheless I have always been aware of the fact that they were female, and the stray mating dance thoughts always had to be repressed.&nbsp; Especially if they were attractive in the gender sense.&nbsp; Perhaps it is simply age, but I realized after a recent routine physical that I had finally made it over the gender hurdle and the doctor was just that: a professional doing herm job competently.&nbsp; It wasn't that I didn't know she was female, I chose her for that reason, and it turned out that she was attractive, but after the first visit, hesh was "just" a competent doctor, and I was paying attention only to that as hesh was still in the evaluation stage of choice as a PCP.&nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: &quot;verdana&quot; , sans-serif;">*Gender reference intentional. </span></span><br />&nbsp;&nbsp; J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-88597332527466620682016-03-22T14:51:00.000-07:002017-10-22T11:57:40.761-07:00Why I Am Not a Feminist: Men and Women are Different Animals <br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Because I am a humanist.&nbsp; A humanist treats all people as individuals with the dignity and respect they have earned as a human being regardless of any group they may have been born into, chosen, or indoctrinated into at some point in their lives.&nbsp; A humanist recognizes that humans come with a lot of baggage some of which may not be functional in a modern society, but a humanist recognizes that it is what the individual has unpacked from that baggage which is important, not the baggage itself.&nbsp; Many men and women from religious and social indoctrination carry a heavy load of baggage of paternalism and misogyny, but to the extent that they have or have not left some of it behind, the humanist will accord respect for the human accordingly.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;As unpacking religious and social baggage is a difficult and frequently impossible human task, castigating all those who have not done so because of their baggage is neither functional nor humanistic.&nbsp; Those who have managed to unpack and leave behind some of the more dysfunctional bags need all the respect and help from others they can get, and not be thrown under the baggage bus.&nbsp; For those on the bus education and ostracism are about the only options for a rational humanist, but these options are generational in impact, and those individuals on the bus that have unpacked a bit are critical to the education role, and deserve all the dignity and respect they can find if they manage to leave the bus even for a short holiday.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Men and women are fundamentally different biologically, emotionally, and in the roles they play in insuring that the next generation of humanity is an improvement over the last which is a fundamental evolutionary drive for all sexual animals.&nbsp; The mating dance in most species is clear evidence that females will refuse to mate with less than the best male available whatever the best means to the female and the male will invest significant time, energy and genetics in being best.&nbsp; Males tend to be show-offs, brightly colored, bigger and more aggressive (expendable) while females tend to be drab, and blend into the scenery so they still can get the offspring to self-sufficiency even in the absence of the territorial protection of the male.&nbsp; The male's primary role in the progeny project is to provide a safe and bountiful space for the female to nurture the young.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;In pre-industrial societies the division of labor between men and women was unforced, with women taking on the productive jobs that were compatible with child care, clothing provisioning, gardening, feeding the family, and housekeeping.&nbsp; Generally the productivity of women was an investment in the family, rather than income producing.&nbsp; The men, relatively more expendable after conception, took on the more time and labor intensive jobs on the periphery of the settlement that were also dangerous:&nbsp; Hunting, grain farming, herding, and warfare.&nbsp; Men also took on the local jobs that were essentially uninterruptable, smithing, building, etc.&nbsp; For this productivity men were paid so that they could exchange their labor for other useful items they couldn't make. Most of the pay was spent on things useful to provide the safe and bountiful space for the family.&nbsp; Some may have been reserved for capital improvements in his own productivity, or hiring others to boost his productivity.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Industrialization had a profound effect on the economic value of the productivity of women in the home. The 18th century mills were primarily devoted to production of cloth mainly cotton which effectively eliminated the economic productivity of spinning and weaving in the home.&nbsp; The sewing machine and the clothing factories was the final nail in the coffin of homemade clothing as a value producing industry compatible with child raising.&nbsp; In the early 20th century home appliances mainly the washing machine improved the home productivity of moms to the point that homemaking, shopping, cooking and serving were the last remaining home economic activity that were compatible with raising children.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Industrialization had an equally profound effect on the economic role of men.&nbsp; No longer could the smith compete with a home forge, he had to tend an industrial forge that was running 24/7.&nbsp; A wagon wright (archaic terminology intentional) no longer could produce a wagon, much less a mechanical vehicle in his shop at home; he was tied to an assembly line metaphorically catching a wheel bouncing off the floor to attach it to the axle.&nbsp; The wagon came on schedule and the wheel bounced on time, and the worker could not even pee until a relief showed up. This set the pattern for a man's job in any role in industry.&nbsp; Inflexible long hours on the job, that were well compensated as wages were relatively inconsequential compared with productivity of the enterprise.&nbsp; If the genetic imperative of producing a reproducing adult carrying his genes was a need for a man, the Faustian bargain of enabling a less physically demanding but more important parenting role in the absence of a functional father for their parenting partner in exchange for the long, demanding job outside the home to provide the resources for caregiving, nurturing, and socializing their children to reproductive adulthood.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">&nbsp;Management of these soul crunching enterprises reinforced some of the more antisocial characteristics of males: competitiveness, aggression, and lack of concern for their fellow humans of either gender.&nbsp; It has always been known that "Nice guys finish last."&nbsp; Not that it was necessary but science has caught up:</span></span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; From a <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/store/books/9-to-5-your-mind-at-work/?WT.mc_id=SA_ebook_MindatWork">SciAm Book</a><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; float: none; font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21.4667px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Research shows that nice people are more likely to get and keep a job, but they tend to earn less and get passed over for leadership positions more often than their more demanding colleagues.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;They earn less because nobody really wants to be an asshole, and being an asshole is a necessary attribute for a leadership position.&nbsp; From supply and demand theory a soulless enterprise will have to pay more to induce people to be assholes.&nbsp; It therefore follows that assholes make more than nice guys or nice gals.&nbsp; Human females fall heavily into the nice gal part of the humanism curve and it would seem reasonable for feminists to be trying to raise compensation for all in the nice people jobs.&nbsp; Instead feminists seem to be pushing to compete for equal access to the high paid asshole jobs.&nbsp; There are a few women that fall on the asshole end of the humanism curve and since they are competing with the average male asshole they generally do well in proportion to their distribution on the curve. Adequate pay for equal work in the nice guy positions primarily occupied by moms and people of both genders with more important things to do than being an asshole like students, artists, and care givers does not appear on the feminist agenda.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;A few feminnists advocate for parental leave for both genders, but being a parent or a potential parent is a disqualification for leadership unless your name is Zuckerberg or you are in a comparable situation. While the interviewer may not ask if you are sterile or a non-parent, there are other ways of determining if your loyalty is to the corporation rather than humanity.&nbsp; Note that a male active parent carries the same disability as a mom or a potential mom. Take too much time off to referee or even cheer a child's game or take herm to a tournament and watch the promotion bait for a salary increase fly off the hook.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;There is a reason that moms are mostly women.&nbsp; As a male mom at times I can attest that raising children to be productive and responsibly reproductive humans demands a lot of time, energy and emotional investment in those children.&nbsp; From oxytocin, to breast feeding natural forces have generated a strong emotional bond between women and their children.&nbsp; The nurturing investment in the gene pool is natural for women as they know for sure that the genes of the children are at least half hers given modern biology knowledge and instinctively for biologically naive women.&nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;The medical revolution which reduced maternal and infant mortality to insignificance and&nbsp;relatively reliable conception planning which became possible in the early 20th century had a profound effect on the last remaining home activity: child raising. When one conception could be reliably considered to be one reproductive adult, and women could reliably control their own fecundity without the consent of any man, a family size of 2 to 4 children became optimal socially, further freeing up women from the ties to the home.&nbsp; Nonetheless, the demands of proper parenting of even a few children limit the kinds of work outside the home that women can consider even after the last child is in (pre) school when the father is in the socially traditional and absent provisioning role or as unfortunately all too common absent in any role.&nbsp; The soulless corporate enterprise managed by assholes insures that most of these jobs that allow time for parenting are minimum wage or less (see tipped servers) and are generally held by moms either voluntarily or of necessity.&nbsp; Just another reality for most women that is ignored by feminists and one of the major reasons I object to the label.&nbsp; Believe me: the men and women fighting to raise the minimum wage do not call themselves feminists.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;A major waste of time and effort by feminists is trying to change the nature of the mating dance of humans as sexual animals.&nbsp; Normal male attention getting behavior: What used to be called chivalry; commenting on the attractiveness of a female; offering trinkets, food and drink; displays of their male prowess to strange women; even quiet appreciation of the attractiveness of a woman are all condemned by feminists as treating women as sexual objects.&nbsp; In other words they are trying to change the mammalian male view of the female of the species. Men may come to appreciate other attractive attributes but the first thing a dry prick looks at are the secondary sex attributes.&nbsp; They don't even need to be conventionally attractive but they have to be female. &nbsp; &nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;Everything that feminism has done since it became a movement in the last half of the 20th century&nbsp; has at best hindered women in fully participating as sexual humans in society. &nbsp; Changing the language to pretend that male dominance does not exist.&nbsp; Male dominance is a historical artifact of the dependence of reproducing women in many cultures, and in an industrial society.&nbsp; Demanding access to asshole positions and the pay that goes along with them.&nbsp; And suggesting that moms working or stay at home are an affront to feminism.&nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">&nbsp;Finally and probably the most important reason I am not a feminist is that almost all feminists of all genders discourage successful women from contributing to the human gene pool whether they choose to become stay at home moms, or continue to be successful in contributing economically in the society while parenting. The mommy wars are not over.&nbsp; A proper feminist of either gender is childless, usually permanently so, in order to avoid the parenting penalty inherent in any job.</span></span><br /><br />J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-30881962785903761482011-10-02T12:13:00.000-07:002017-11-25T11:42:49.412-08:00Jesuism<br /><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Paul is the reason I am not a Christian. God is the reason I am an atheist. Jesus is the reason I and many nominal Christians are Jesuists. </span></span><br /><br /><blockquote>Paul is dead, but seriously… just this morning I was trying to come up with a term that would encapsulate my atheistic attitude toward Christianity (within which religion I was loosely raised) and permit my admiration for Jesus himself. I thought I might have coined the name "Jesuist" and Googled it…</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Anonymous on https://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-jesuist.html </blockquote><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Jesuism in the West is an atheistic worldview based on the teachings of Jesus as documented in the Gospels including the recently discovered Gnostic Gospels of Thomas and Judas. A Jesuist rejects the supernatural accretions to the stories about Jesus as mnemonic and marketing devices typical of the age, and rejects all theistic references including self-references by Jesus as metaphorical devices to communicate with the prevailing Jewish and Pagan religions.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;To understand Jesuism one must understand the concept of radical respect for all people taught by Jesus in the Beatitudes, the Good Samaritan, the Adulteress, and indeed in all the stories involving Jesus directly. While Jesus believed in the eventual judgment by his God to help formulate and sell the radical concept that all people are to be accepted as brothers and sisters, the Jesuist will accept this as part of the religious culture Jesus dedicated his life to changing. Jesus was a Jew who believed in the Abrahamic God concept, but his rebellion was as much against his own God as the religion of the Jews he was immersed in.</span></span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.uuabookstore.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=229"><span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><span style="background-color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></span></span><span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><span style="background-color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.uuabookstore.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=229">The Jefferson Bible</a> </span></span>is a useful condensation of the traditional teachings of Jesus and could be considered the Holy Book of the Jesuist. Thomas Jefferson winnowed out the story and teachings of Jesus the man for us in <a href="http://www.uuabookstore.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=229">The Jefferson Bible</a>. He littered the floor of the President's office with trash from the bible created by Paul and others, until he had distilled the essence of Jesus from the rest of the bible. I claim Jefferson as the first Jesuist, he certainly was an atheist, (politically a Deist.) The Jefferson Bible is a concise and readable way to discover the ministry of Jesus.<span style="background-color: white;"><span></span></span></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Part of the traditional Unitarian “Affirmation”</span></span><br /><blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Unitarians believe in</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">…the brotherhood of man</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The leadership of Jesus...</span></span></blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">could be its doxology.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Jesuism is really designed for Christians who, having lost faith in Paul's Christ have moved back to the Gospels for meaning and morality. Once they get comfortable without a savior many of them find they don't need God either. Particularly the God of the OT and Paul who was more worried about idol worship than people treating each other right. They can salvage most of their 'Jesus loves me' conditioning with Jesus as exemplar rather than God, and even worship in their same church.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;You will hear them talking about Jesus ministering to the poor, the prostitutes, the gays, the fishermen, and other common people. You will also hear them focusing their religion down to the Second Great Commandment:</span></span><br /><blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself</span></span></blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">with the gloss of Matt 25:40</span></span><br /><blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.</span></span></blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;It is the teaching of radical respect for all people which separates Jesus from all of the religious teachers of his time. Until Jesus, religion was all about us vs them, 'We are the world's sweet chosen few, the rest of you be damned.' After Jesus it was more of the same. Fortunately, Paul hijacked his charisma and caused the preservation of the synoptics to document it, incidentally preserving the message of radical respect to be rediscovered by those who can relate to it.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;There are theistic Jesuists. Some might call them Synoptic Christians since for them the NT stops before John. But they believe Jesus is the Son of God by the Holy Spirit, who was sent to earth to teach the humanist message of Love your neighbors, all of them, even the Samaritans, respect the poor, the meek, the thieves, the whores and even the people who hate you. In short how to live this life. Many of them take the next step and don't worry about an afterlife believing that how they live this life is all that matters to God.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;There is little of Christ in their beliefs but they call themselves Christians for traditional reasons, as many of them are found in traditional Christian Churches. Some call themselves Progressive Christians; I would call them theist Jesuists. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>The Humanist Teachings of Jesus</i></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;It is clear to me that this historical person was a human that lived and died in the usual human fashion. He believed in God, but was not one himself. He was the earliest documented humanist, and I think all humanists, theistic and atheistic are indebted to him.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;37...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">38This is the first and great commandment.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Matthew 22:37-40 (King James Version)</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;In particular when the neighbor explicitly referred to was a member of a hated group that had just caused Jesus to 'shake the dust off his sandals' for one of the most serious breaches imaginable of the social contract of the time.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;In a desert community refusing hospitality was probably comparable to refusing to help an injured man by the side of the road. The chances were good that one refused a drink of water, could dehydrate before getting to the next stopping place.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;But he was not telling us to love just the nice neighbors, but all of them. This of course does not mean approving of everything they do, but that violations of the social contract must be dealt with love rather than hate.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp; With the gloss of Matt 25:40</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">"As ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." the explicit humanism of Jesus becomes quite clear. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;I find Jesus to be quite human, quite humanistic, and radically respectful of all people. No wonder they killed him. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Cynic and Pharisaic teachings were an important component of the message of Jesus but it was his synthesis of the important ideas of both, and certainly his showmanship in presenting the synthesis that made his message so important for its time. The fact that there are still many people trying to emulate his teachings no matter how corrupted, although some are going back to the gospels only, that makes Jesus so important in western religions.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism. All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Wiscidea</span></span></blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>The Historical Jesus</i></span></span> <br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Jesus as a normal 30+ male of his time probably had a female companion who was with him during his ministry. Illiterate as nearly all women of the time she created an adoring oral history embellished as all oral histories are for mnemonic as well as story telling reasons. She probably helped him hone his message, I see a lot of anti-misogyny in it, at least in the context of the time. No man thought up the tale of the unstoned whore.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;As I understand the 'Q document' its very existence as a 'document' is an inference. I find it much more likely that Q was a companion of Jesus for much or all of his ministry, had a good memory for what he said at the various gatherings and related those to the disciples along with other lore that may have been less important to the disciples in their cult building. Hesh probably was what would be termed today a groupie, probably was not literate, as it is unlikely that hesh had any relationship with the priesthood. The reason I am using the gender inclusive pronoun is that I find it probable that Q was female." And yes, I think of "Q" as Mary Magdalene.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Also I think Mary was much more important to the ministry of Jesus than the men who wrote the histories would even think of giving her credit for. I suspect that social conversations between the two were instrumental in developing Jesus' overall gospel of respect and love for ones neighbor. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;In any event the story if you will or oral history which was probably the case in that illiterate culture was probably originated by a companion of Jesus in his travels.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp; This oral history was picked up by the disciples who as tradespeople of the time were probably also illiterate. At some point literate followers of the cults generated by Jesus were induced to write down the various oral histories, three of which were canonized along with John's commentary. The rest were destroyed, lost, or in the case of the Gnostics buried for posterity.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;I have no problem extrapolating the Synoptics back to the original oral history and stripping the mnemonics and worship to get to the radical theistic humanism of Jesus.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;What I get from the story is a humanistic and anti-religious message. Radical for its time and place. Certainly God is there but it is a personal not a male religious God. I find a strong feminine influence on the message. Admittedly a lot of soup from one oyster, but when the oyster is strongly and uniquely flavored, it may not be a useless soup. Even for an atheist.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The existence of a cult whose names and characters have been preserved in the stories argues strongly for the existence for a leader for that cult. People do not generally risk reputation and possibly their lives for a cobbled together philosophy or religion. Also crowds generally do not gather for panel discussions of religion or anything else. The cult had a spokesperson, Ockham's beloved razor says the spokesperson was Jesus and that he assembled and preached the stories that form the basis of his ministry.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The other very strong argument is that a contemporary religious charlatan needed a God like man as a marketing tool to be the savior for his followers who he had convinced were sinners in need of a savior. This charlatan hijacked the charisma and one of the miracles associated with Jesus as the basis for his savior Jesus, now Christ Jesus. The fact that his followers accepted the transfer of the charisma from Jesus to the Christ argues strongly that a popular preacher existed within their lifetimes who could believably be thought of as the Christ.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;If you strip the obvious miracles, especially the resurrection, which Christians cannot do of course without destroying their faith, you find a charismatic itinerant preacher, who integrated a consistent message of radical humanism and independence from the god mediators, priests, and shamans. It was a theistic culture so it is not surprising that he would believe in God. The core of his message was to develop a personal relationship with God directly, no priests necessary or even desirable, and treat all humans as neighbors to be respected, aided when necessary even at considerable cost to yourself, and loved as one loves oneself....</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Cults are not started by committees, which for me argues strongly that there was a historical person that was the basis for the Jesus cult for which there is some historical evidence, Paul's Christian Cult. for which there is ample historical support, the Gnostic cults, for which historical documentation has recently been discovered, and other cults rumored but for which no documentation exists.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;But again, God was the dominant social paradigm at the time atheists and secularists really were non-existent. Even a personal God independent of any religion was radically humanist for the time.&nbsp; </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I see no religious establishment in the sayings of Jesus. He was in all sayings directly attributed to him giving religion back to the people. Jesus was using the prevailing paradigm of God to teach, but the focus was on being a better human being to and for other humans. In other words you learn from God how to be a better human.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;I am not talking about The Lord Jesus of Nazareth I am talking about the human preacher Jesus, who was using God to teach his fellow humans humanity. I suspect he believed in his personal relationship to God and believed that his mission from God was to teach what he taught.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Certainly the radical theistic humanism of Jesus in the Synoptics before the passion has much to teach Christians and atheists alike. It is true some of the idealism is over the top, but none the less effective as an ideal if not a practical paradigm for living.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;In some payoff scenarios turn the other cheek seems to be an extremely effective strategy in game theory known as tit-for two tats. Opponent defects once, cooperate. If opponent defects twice retaliate. Practically: If hesh smites the other cheek, kill herm.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;There is a good reason that much of modern Christianity, the 'Progressive Christians' have for the most part reduced the entire law and the prophets, that is the whole Bible, to this teaching of Jesus. An atheist can learn simply by studying this and its context.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;"Love thy neighbor As thyself." In those days as now religion made a good living selling self-hate. Jesus is clearly stating that all humans are worthy of self-respect. You can't get much more humanist than that. Theistic humanist? Of course theism was the language of the time."</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;I find the evidence for the existence of Jesus, the itinerant preacher and entertainer, persuasive. He would be a great televangelist today and as then he would refute all the Pauline garbage preached by the followers of his competitor in the religious leader industry."</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;What would Jesus do? If he were alive today would he have a television ministry based in a megachurch in Marin County? It sure wouldn't be in LaLa Land. Would he be regaling against the preachers of hate for your neighbors of the wrong religion, color, or sexual preference? Would he be successful? </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Footnote: the (2011) Wiki article of the same name was simply a ripoff of the name to simplify Jesusism which is what his article is about. </span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-12190456082130248132011-08-07T20:12:00.000-07:002016-04-30T08:30:52.616-07:00Thinking about dying<br /><blockquote>There is no reason for amazement: surely one always knew<br />that cultures decay, and life's end is death.<br />Robinson Jeffers The Purse-Seine, 1937</blockquote><br /><blockquote>Charles Fiterman on facing death.<br /><a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=2&amp;discussionID=415325&amp;messages_per_page=7">Beliefnet Discussions - Beliefnet.com:</a> "I have bladder cancer and was given 6 to 18 <span id="goog_1244185696"></span><span id="goog_1244185697"></span>months. I think I'm facing it fairly well. I ask daily what am I doing with my time that justifies the pain and expense and inconvenience to others of going on. When the answer becomes bad enough I will do the right thing." Written on 2/25/2005.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=5606&amp;discussionID=444835">Charles</a> died June 19, 2005 at The Palliative Care Center &amp; Hospice of the North Shore, 2821 Central St., Evanston, IL 60201. Hospice care is not a death panel, it is a death option. It should be a basic right for all people. <br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />As a youth with a lifetime ahead one has plenty of life to waste even if one is vaguely aware that death is somewhere ahead and final. So one wastes it discovering what is of transient value and what might be of more value to self and society. In midlife one is so busy with creating value for self, family and society that thoughts of the end of life seldom intrude. <br /><br />Accepting the reality and finality of death, does not lead at all to fear of dying today or any day. When the time comes that the mind and body cannot maintain their integrity they will cease to function. In the mean time there are many things that a person needs to do to affect the society of which hesh is a part to make that society more human friendly. Some of those things will have lasting effects, some perhaps will have none, but all are important reasons for living today, and as long as one can affect others in the society.<br /><br />After the creative torch is passed to children and/or the creative successors at work, 50 is as good an age as any, that the end of life becomes apparant and one reflects on the contributions one has made, and what still is left to be done to help those carrying on the legacy. Telling stories about life lessons learned is a common solution, either live if one is fortunate enough to have the successors nearby, or in writing if not. Self published books that may have surprising impact far beyond their intended audience of friends and family, or which languish on shelves. The value is in the creation, not the result.<br /><br />I know of one atheist who is struggling to stay alive to finish volume IV of an immigrant's life story that is resonating with another immigrant from a different country in a different era. Worthless? Easing into death? I think not. But the pressure of impending death is powerful, and the work left to be done is reason enough not to go quietly into the night. <br /><br />Death might well be described as a condition when affecting others is no longer possible. It is nothing to fear, if one has affected others properly they will carry on the task of making society a better place for humans, and life in the larger sense goes on, even though the no longer useful individual is not a part of it.<br /><br />Today I can see people I have affected taking the society to places I cannot conceive, but which I approve of. Whether I die today or some day in the future I am content. But I am not finished affecting others in my society. So until the time comes when I can no longer do so I will continue to live my life so that it is worth dying for. Thanks, Forrest Church. <br /><br />Just recently I passed some advice from my father, a great athlete, to his great grandson who will probably not be a great athlete but who is trying to learn a sport for fun. Maybe my grandson didn't even listen, but the time I spent with the memories of my father and the love I still gave and received from him makes his death merely a release from the pain of the cancer that took his life." <br /><br />I would suggest that some people that are long dead are still creating meaning in the world today regardless of whether they ceased to exist at death or are entertaining God in Heaven. Homer, Socrates who influenced Plato through him the world, the human Jesus, Shakespeare, Monteverdi, Mozart, just to name a few. Even the apocryphal sweeper who was building a Cathedral, or the scribe that wrote <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4%3A7-8&amp;version=KJV">Timothy</a>. As Lincoln, Luscomb and many others have said "There is no end to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit."<br /><br />There is incredible meaning to today and every day if you know the kid (maybe your own) you rescue from the barrio may make it to the supreme court. It is true that some days are wasted, either through lack of opportunity, or laziness, but you never wake up planning for that when you know that the days left are limited.<br /><br />I am not looking for immortality, that seems like emptiness forever to me. I would rather do what I can each day to affect my chosen society to make it better, more beautiful, and more liveable for all in it. Some days are better than others but the meaning is in the attempt. <br /><br />As Edna St. Vincent Millay affirms;<br /><br /><blockquote>My candle burns at both ends<br />It will not last the night.<br />But ah, my foes and oh, my friends<br />It gives a lovely light. <br />"First Fig" from A Few Figs from Thistles</blockquote><br />Possibly my favorite poem. How better to explain the value of a day in a finite life. <br /><br />Accepting the finality of death does not mean courting it. It simply means that eventually it will happen, and that nothing will follow. I have found that atheists in general avoid risky thrill activities because they know that death is the end. I have many things to do in my life to continue and build on things I have already done. I am in no hurry to finish, but if death came tomorrow or today, I am content that what I have done is worth dying for. <br /><br />An atheist would spend their last 24 hours if they are aware of the fact will spend the last day with friends and relatives giving and receiving love and thanks for all the joys and gifts received over the life of the dying person. This will be of great value to the atheist by making the end a wrap up of a long and meaningful life. Certainly there will be loose ends, but these will bequeathed in life rather than in some soulless will. I know this as a fact having experienced it twice. I know of but was not present at assisted suicides that were uniformly described as poignant but generally happy experiences for all. <br /><br />"I have been to many atheist 'Celebrations of the Life Of .....' There is no mourning. Death is the bookend that says the person's active contribution is over, but those who knew and loved herm remember and celebrate all of the contributions the deceased has made to their lives and celebrate the Legacy of the deceased.<br /><br />I have been to many Christian funerals, where mourners sing sad songs and hope against hope that somehow their prayers will help the dead avoid Hellfire and damnation. And also secretly hope that when they die they will also avoid Hellfire and damnation.<br /><br />The 'High point' in a Requiem Mass is always the Dies Irae. The day of wrath and anger when the trumpets will sound and the dead will be judged. It is always scary music: Pay attention sinners! Get right with God or Hell awaits! Kind of fun to sing, but I wouldn't want to be a believer in that wrathful God. I particularly like the Tuba Mirum from the Berlioz Requiem The brass blares from the four corners of the hall "You are Damned" the chorus responds musically "I have hope?" The horns repeat, louder. "NO WAY." The chorus tries again. Again the horns deny. Finally the chorus gives up and joins the horns in the damning chord.<br /><br />It is for this that we gather at the death of a friend? No, thank you! I much prefer the celebration of a friend's Legacy. To contemplate all those volumes on the bookshelf that we can remember at will and share with others when appropriate or necessary." <br /><br /><br /><blockquote>REMINDER<br />The world began the day that I was born<br />and on the day I die the world will end.<br />Between these dates there will have been<br />matters of great importance.<br />John Dobbs</blockquote><br />I have no problem with the fact that the world began on the day that I was born. From my predecessors, alive and dead, I was left a rich legacy of a valuable space, filled with beautiful music and wonderful people. Many of of those wonderful people are dead, some long dead, but I can still appreciate their art and thinking from their legacies. Each day I look forward to the exciting challenge of incorporating as much as possible into my space. I eagerly do what I can to make the space even more valuable. Then, with as much love as possible I pass it on to those who will pay it forward.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>REMINDER<br />...there is nothing I can leave<br />on the final date<br />but a legacy of urgencies.<br />John Dobbs</blockquote><br />If I have lived my life well, and loved enough, there will be many around willing and able to deal with those urgencies." <br /><br />With the kind permission of Bob and Louise Decormier, and with my greatest respect and love: I will end with a poem by Louise's Father from a collection of the same name.&nbsp; <br /><br /><blockquote>LEGACY<br />by<br />John Dobbs<br /><br />I leave you this space<br />which I have occupied<br />temporarily,<br /><br />now clean as a vacuum<br />to hold short sorrow,<br />and brief remembering.<br /><br />There are no shards,<br />no broken statuary.<br />I had no idols.<br /><br />The proud thoughts<br />and the humble things<br />remain unshattered.<br /><br />I leave you this valuable<br />and useful<br />space.</blockquote>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-69842410708228573282011-07-01T15:09:00.000-07:002016-04-30T13:16:43.335-07:00The Believer's Brain<br />In his most recent book <a href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/">The Believing Brain</a>, Times Books, 2011 Micheal Shermer makes a strong case that the human brain is necessarily a belief engine. His case is that pattern seeking and assigning agency to the patterns is a survival trait built in to the brain. His claim is that we believe first and think about it later, if ever. In my experience this is as true of atheists and skeptics (including Shermer) as it is for religious believers. <br /><br />As many will testify dragging a belief, say about UFOs, out and trying to ask whether the belief is justified or not is extremely difficult for most people. Whether you are for 'em or ag'in 'em can you really decide you just don't know? My experience is that most people can't on any belief based subject. Which is to say, if Shermer is right, all subjects. It as if "I just don't know" doesn't have a home in the human brain. Even Shermer falls prey to this syndrome. He spends many pages debunking UFO's, ESP, God beliefs, political beliefs, etc. It seems his confirmation bias won't admit data that casts doubt on his skeptical belief system. Not at all unusual, and in effect proof of his thesis. I would not argue that any of these belief systems are true, but in many cases e.g. God and ESP, there is enough data to indicate "I don't know" is a reasonable position to take. <br /><br />"That's right!" has many homes in the brain for decisions affecting beliefs. The <i>dorsolateral prefrontal cortex</i> which is the center for rational evaluation of data is effectively shut down when first evaluating new data. The <i>orbital frontal cortex</i> the emotional center in the brain and the <i>anterior cingulate cortex</i> which is the conflict resolution center, that is, does this data conflict with my belief system, are both active. Once a emotionally satisfying resolution of the conflict, that is, throw out the conflicting data, the reward mechanisms in the <i>ventral striatum</i> kick in. See P 260. for the experimental data. This makes a lot of sense, in the modern world "I don't know" gets in the way of many necessary decisions. Which stock to buy, which way to bet on a business decision, etc, as they say, it is better to go with the gut, i.e. the belief systems in the brain, and just do it.<br /><br />The escape hatch for this belief reinforcement is the scientific method, which is the way we can after the fact check on our belief systems. But as Shermer points out even scientists have beliefs which shape their protocols, and may in fact be testing only things that reinforce their beliefs. Shermer ends with the belief that "The truth is out there, and although it may be difficult to find, science is the best tool we have for uncovering it." <br /><br />One of the reasons I enjoyed the book is that he makes a hard scientific case, that is materialistic and rational, for woo-woo. Maybe I am belief disabled, or I had the wrong upbringing and went to the wrong school, but I have never been able to understand how extremely intelligent and rational people can believe weird things. I think I understand it better now, but I am still an outsider looking in.<br /><br />Whether you are a believer, skeptic, or that rare breed I call "acred" who agree with Lazarus Long channeled by Heinlein that "belief gets in the way of learning," you will find this book extremely helpful in dealing with believers of any persuasion. It seems the "La, la, la, I can't hear you." is a built in function of most human brains. According to Shermer an evolved necessary brain function for dealing with decisions under uncertainty. As my world class athlete father would frequently state: "Don't think, you weaken the ball club." A fascinating and apparently nearly ubiquitous attitude. Shermer's insight provides a useful tool for understanding all those morons that don't agree with me.J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-28495098462418355152011-04-20T23:31:00.000-07:002017-11-27T11:19:45.111-08:0021st Century Sexuality <br />&nbsp;<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">God is losing the Kinder, Küche, Kirche battle, and female believers as well. Although some women will chose (be indoctrinated into) this path, the best and the brightest will leave the religious gene pool. The other nail in the religious coffin is female contraception. If you can't keep them barefoot and pregnant, why on earth would they want to go to church and listen to all that sexist garbage. There is an enviable trend in many denominations to women clergy, who perhaps recognize the social and community attraction of churches for women, and are downplaying the misogynic traditional theology of the Abrahamic traditions. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The thing that religions generally do not want to recognize is that reproduction in humans is not just popping a litter out and seeing who survives. Reproduction in humans is a long term investment if the zygote is going to get to puberty. One of the main evolutionary purposes of pleasure in sex and the evolutionary reason for the hidden estrus in humans is that the pair bond is essential for reproductive success, which is getting reproducing offspring into the world. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp; Technological solutions have insured that for practical purposes all pregnancies will result in a pubescent human for those that can afford the technology and many that can't. Historical fecundity limiters of maternal and child mortality have been eliminated by technology, so it is reasonable that technology should provide the solutions for fecundity limitation to sustainable limits.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Women have solved this problem with contraception. If a man is going to have progeny the equation has changed radically. He can rape all the sterile women he wants to, or if you prefer make love to them, but he might as well as stay home with Rosy Palm for all of the progeny he is going to get. Before the contraceptive is going to disappear he is going to have to convince the woman that he is the best father she is going to find.&nbsp; Or should I say co-parent as the lesbian pair bond is a viable parenting option with the sperm donation arranged in a variety of ways. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Think of it as evolution in action. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;In defining what constitutes gender roles I suspect I am an apostate to the traditional males, although thoroughly and happily heterosexual. I am much more interested in relationships than sex, and partnerships rather than dominance. When I had growing children I did more than my share of parenting since my partner had the more demanding career and I had no problem with playing the male MBA privilege card when necessary to change jobs and careers to accommodate parenting.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp; Probably because I make a point of noticing them, I see more males adopting this relationship model rather than the traditional patriarchal rape model. If this is effeminate so be it. I don't think so. I think it is simply not being a prick. That is one who is driven by testosterone to spread genes as far and wide as possible whether or not it will do any good. I see the testosterone driven model waning at least among the educated elite, but perhaps that is wishful thinking and I am only noticing the minority that isn't growing at all. I hope not, as I think this is the only way a modern society can survive. Relegating half the society's brain power to the bedroom is not going to work.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until again both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Responsible sexuality normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;I was never indoctrinated that my sexual impulses were bad or 'dirty.' I was, however, strongly indoctrinated that if the Girl Scout was not similarly inclined (Hat tip to Tom Lehrer) or I was not prepared and ready to accept the consequences of my instinctual action, I had better cause her to cry and walk out the door, or cause myself to say 'Oh, shit. Oh well, there will be another who will be similarly inclined.'"</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;All of which have happened to me. As well as similar situations where we were both willing and eager, but not ready for the expected consequences. In one case purely psychological consequences. As a normal heterosexual male, in normal heterosexual social activities, I have had all the usual opportunities, and temptations, but in general according to my standards I behaved morally rather than instinctively. I have no regrets about missed opportunities. I think I chose wisely to miss them. But it was not denying my dark side. It was controlling my life.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than denying the pair bonding efficacy of long term sexuality. And it works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Personal responsibility may or may not include abstinence, monogamy, marriage, masturbation, porn, sex toys, prostitutes, homosexuality, and sundry other things the churches deplore for everybody but the preachers. It does include radical respect for a partner, a partner capable of informed consent, and acceptance of responsibility for anything that is the result of the sex including STDs, psychological problems, and conception.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp; I strongly advocate deferring first pregnancies to the last few years of education, but I am enough of a realist to know that changing instinctive behaviors is not going to work. Every person over the age of 8 should know the benefits and possible risks of all forms of contraception singly and in combination, the Pope be damned. Teens will have sex. This is a given. Very few of them male or female want the responsibility of pregnancy or abortion and will take the necessary steps to prevent it until they are ready for the responsibility of parenting. None of them will "Just say no" </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;A huge change and I see it in the teens I know well is the complete separation of sexuality and reproduction. Teens of the appropriate age are doing the teen thing just like their remote ancestors did. The difference is that they know how to prevent conception and if relevant STD's and are deferring reproduction until much later. This is a mind-boggling change in attitude toward both sexuality and reproduction. At least for those of us who grew up with much different sexual morality and iffy contraception. My guess is that for those inclined that way late college and grad school will be breeding time for the females. Perhaps with older men who are already out working and established. Although many of the teens are bonding with people their own age and deferring children until an appropriate time. I can certainly understand that particularly with grad schools supporting married couples adequately if not comfortably. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;It has already started and it will be the death of paternalism and misogyny. It is called Norplant and safer, less invasive female controlled contraceptives. Once the female can truthfully say "Go ahead fucker, it won't do any good," although the .32 or three fingers up into the solar plexus will have the same effect, the mating dance changes considerably. It doesn't make any difference if God says do it, or force says do it, if the man wants progeny, he will have to convince her to stop the contraception. Certainly "God says do it" will retain power over those properly conditioned to accept God's word. But even back in my childhood, there were a bunch of "unlucky" Catholic families with 2 or 3 children. It was probably a coincidence that the woman was intelligent, educated, and employed.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;There will probably still be women that will choose to be sex toys and probably even have children by the rich and famous, recent news events prove that, and it is a viable reproduction strategy. The rich and famous probably have useful genes, or at least genes useful to the current culture. Prenuptials and paternity suits take care of the financial support issues whether or not the rich and famous guy is a father or simply a prick. The few that choose this route will make very little difference, those that aren't rich and famous are going to have to find the whorehouses or the Rosy Palms, or make themselves desirable husbands and fathers.</span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-83099970457548255202011-01-28T22:57:00.001-08:002017-11-27T11:27:00.724-08:00Ring Speciation<span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;It is clear to me that there is a ring speciation going on where educated rational people (ER<a href="http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2016/04/social-support-groups.html">SSG</a>) are at one side of the ring and belief based generally undereducated people (UFSSG) are at the other. In between are the educated believers (EFSSG) who may do well in technical and even science that does not require critical and rational thinking. Other parts of the ring include educated secular (ESSSG) where the SSGs like spectator sports and even some business organizations. Thinking and analysis is discouraged in favor of fitting into the group ethos. Educational achievement is quite varied in this group, but is of less value than knowledge of the details and social values of the chosen SSG. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The speciation is due to mating habits. ERSSG couples breed late and selection is on willingness of the male to share parenting among other things. The women will generally choose the second to last year of academia for the first child. Mid to late 20's for most. The third year of med school is known as the breeding year for female med students. Marriage optional although the man is generally securely pair bonded. The woman's choice to eliminate the contraceptive is the key to breaking into this species. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The UFSSG part of the ring is the traditional male dominated, male choice paradigm, with marriage and then first child at the end of high school for the woman. The man is typically a few years older, and established in whatever job he is building a career in. The couple formed in high school or church, and the assumption is that the female will drop out of education and work at child raising at least for the early years for the first children, although this typically stretches out with volunteer and church related activities. Typically the main SSG is the church and the ethos is belief and conforming to the church community. Education is generally a low priority, and in many cases actively opposed where it might interfere with the faith. When this works it works well, and provides the basis for many successful religious communities. The downside is that statistics show that stability of the pair bond is weak, as the male domination and role separation encourage straying by the man and subsequent failure of the family unit typically while the children are still young. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The EFSSG in the ring is a traditional corporate career path where education is encouraged and rewarded but loyalty and "belief" in the organization is expected. The ethos is still male dominated, with women in the supporting and child care role. Marriage is generally later with the women getting their Mrs. in college while the men prepare for their corporate careers. Education is generally practical and directed with little emphasis on the thought provoking subjects. Graduate work if any is similarly practical and directed with the aim of corporate style research although that may be in a university environment. But the concept of traditional family style with the woman as social support for the man and in charge of home economics, child care and socialization. Outside work for the woman will typically focus on volunteer activities, possibly church related but usually secular. Typically for the EFSSG the ethos is for a stable family. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Another connector is the relatively undereducated non faith oriented USSSG. In this group ad hoc social groups are common frequently revolving around spectator events, and in the worst case TV and talk radio groupies. Breeding habits in this group are casual social encounters usually in bars, or popular music concerts, etc. Hook-ups for sex and/or pair bonding are the norm. The pair bonds may be lasting but generally are temporary. Children are the responsibility of the woman with or without the support of the fucker. There is little movement to the ERSSG, but there is some movement between the other SSGs.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The ends of the ring are breeding couples only. Evolution doesn't "care" about non breeders. Some will opt out of the breeding cycle although not of sexuality depending on contraception to prevent undesired progeny. Certainly there is a lot of room in the middle of the ring for many variations on the theme. A common mix of education for the men and traditional role for women involves usually a major age difference with the male breeding at the completion of the educational phase and selecting younger women from the church as parent. The man will continue in the traditional role of provider for the family and the woman and church will do the parenting and socialization.</span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-15847455648081525712011-01-19T20:47:00.000-08:002011-02-27T18:47:11.744-08:00Responsible Sexuality with Contraceptives<a href="http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/34789/24028505/Pin_The_Problem_on_The_Pope_Game&post_num=76#448391193"> - Beliefnet</a><br /><br /><blockquote>I STILL just hafta note, however, that a Guy who keeps his Willie in his Pants ISN'T called "Daddy" and DOESN'T contract an STD <br />teilhard</blockquote><br />I don't normally include quotes on this blog but the above statement seems to be the dominant paradigm in the US today. Paternalistic as is all Christian based morality which seems to revel in sin and its consequences here and in the afterlife. As if any horny male teen particularly at a alcohol lubricated celebration of anything, is going to be able to do so. And if the available female isn't enthusiastic, rape will frequently be the option. This is the reality of post pubescent mammalian male behavior. <br /><br />Virginity by college age is quite unnatural, in the sense of contrary to natural mammalian instincts. Teens by and large will have sex, and responsible sexuality means not being called daddy and not being a carrier of STDs whether or not the underwear stays in place. Even with the best of intentions it sometimes doesn't. This means at a minimum that the male considers a fresh condom a necessary component of a wallet. The female should have one in her purse and know how to put it on (with her teeth in the foreplay) whether the male wants it or not. A female contraceptive of choice should be as much a part of preparing for a date as makeup. Once these preparations are completed the guy can keep his willy in his pants and the gal can just say no and everyone including God is happy. If by chance an accident happens it won't as the old saying goes "cause people." <br /><br />The program of abstinence until the first rape blessed by the Church results in broken lives, broken families, and STDs when people fail because of their natural instincts which Christians call sin. The problem here is that I do not buy into Paul's idea of sexual responsibility from 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Paraphrasing a bit: Since I am an ugly misanthrope who isn't getting any, nobody else is going to get any either, and if they take the marriage route they better not enjoy that.<br /><br />Many Catholic young women in my high school many years ago were sexually active and were desirable partners because the tinge of sinfulness added excitement. But the Florence Crittenton home down the street made them early believers in teaching their partners the no condom no sex rule. They made sure it was used properly. Florence Crittenton services were where sinners rejected by their church could hide out until the baby was born, and prepared for the nunnery, as they were "used goods" and unacceptable to any good Catholic man as a wife.<br /><br />I am not anti-Catholic. In everything but sexuality I find the Catholic faith to be useful and beneficial to its parishioners. I do however blame the Pope and his whole sexually dysfunctional dogma that is the cause of all that is wrong with the RCC. But the Catholics that benefit from it by and large ignore the sexuality dogma. Not just the no condom part, the whole no sexuality part.<br /><br />For me sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.<br /><br />I was never indoctrinated that my sexual impulses were bad or 'dirty.' I was, however, strongly indoctrinated that if the Girl Scout was not similarly inclined or I was not prepared and ready to accept the consequences of my instinctual action, I had better cause her to cry and walk out the door, or cause myself to say 'Oh, shit. Oh well, there will be another who will be similarly inclined.'"<br /><br />All of which have happened to me. As well as similar situations where we were both willing and eager, but not ready for the expected consequences. In one case purely psychological consequences. As a normal heterosexual male, in normal heterosexual social activities, I have had all the usual opportunities, and temptations, but in general according to my standards I behaved morally rather than instinctively. I have no regrets about missed opportunities, I think I chose wisely to miss them.<br /><br />Having been around the horn (pun intended) several times in several relationships with and without the intent for progeny, the decision to try for a child by a loving couple inevitably changes a relationship by changing the focus from each other as people and partners to the planned family with all the extra responsibilities and commitment that a family entails. With all of the other pair bonding activities available to a couple that are mutually gratifying and intimate there seems to be a case to be made for reserving that ultimate bonding act intended by nature for the welfare of the continuation of the species for the time when the couple is ready, willing and able to do so. Certainly "taking off the rubber" changes things, but in my opinion and experience not really enough.<br /><br />I understand the argument from pair bonded teens that are deferring parenting for many years that the sexuality is important to holding the bond together and in a sense permitting the deferral of parenting until they are ready financially, and educationally to take on that responsibility. Particularly when many of their peers are pair bonded, sexually active and parents. This normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.<br /><br />Contraceptive sexuality works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.<br /><br />Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than deferring sex until blessed by church or state in marriage. It might have made sense when pubescent females were sold off to the highest bidder. The pair bonding of sexuality was useful in keeping the family unit intact and keeping dad amused between procreation opportunities. And may still be useful in the societies where marriage and high school graduation are the norm at least for the women.<br /><br />Personal responsibility may or may not include abstinence, monogamy, marriage, masturbation, porn, sex toys, prostitutes, homosexuality, and sundry other things the churches deplore for everybody but the preachers.<br /><br />It does include radical respect for a partner, a partner capable of informed consent, and acceptance of responsibility for anything that is the result of the sex including STDs, psychological problems, and conception. <br /><br />Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing. <br /><br />Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.<br /><br />Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-31703282281865986902011-01-17T19:36:00.000-08:002011-01-27T16:39:03.496-08:00Conversation with a Theist.<a href="http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/25304041/The_existence_of_gods?sdb=1&amp;pg=last#481962265">The &#39;existence&#39; of gods - Beliefnet</a><br /><br /><blockquote>You might consider God as a way to rebel against the idea that we are just mindless organisms whose only thought is to build wealth and reproduce. <br />Fangi</blockquote><br />Since I never bought into this religious concept I have no need to rebel. Reproduction and wealth are results not goals of living. I inherited an active and intelligent mind to think with, and I was encouraged to use it effectively to improve the welfare of my chosen society, beginning with family of course, but extending in ever expanding circles to include all those with similar goals. Some of the things I did created wealth, or at least enough to provide for my family, and in the course of events I found another person with an active intelligent mind to share the adventure of trying to produce and care for a couple of more people with active, intelligent educated minds. <br /><br />Frankly God would have been a distraction all along the way that I never found a need for. <br /><blockquote>How do we get to connect with whatever this "something" is? What makes us uniquely human? Secular responses might be developing a connection to community, seeing beyond ourselves to put others first, or expressions of our creativity in our art, music etc. Interestingly, this is exactly what belief in God facilitates... seeing beyond yourself, community, and creativity. Belief provides a construct -- a organizational framework and common language -- to examine and express this "something else" and reject the utilitarian version of reality. <br />Fangi</blockquote>Sorry, I am missing something here. I have no problems at all connecting to my chosen society, and putting that society as primary, I frankly do not see how God does anything but divide society into little belief pools, that frankly can't see beyond the doors of the church. And when they do get beyond those doors they seem to want to drag others behind those doors. <br /><br />My society is limited to those who can think about what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who they are doing it for. There is nothing necessarily utilitarian about this society, and therefore nothing that I need the help of God to reject. In fact it is the rejecting part of God that gives me the biggest problems. Why do I need God to reject anything. If it is worth while and beneficial to the society it will be obvious to all reasonable members of the society, if not no one will pursue it. <br /><br /><blockquote>But, if you've never come home at 3 AM after a long day and thought "what's the purpose of all of this?" then I think you've escaped something most people feel from time to time. <br />Fangi</blockquote>I would suggest if you have then your God has failed you. That is, not kept you out of something that perhaps you shouldn't have been in. I have pulled my share of late nights, some of which I will admit were lessons in what not to do. But the purpose was clear: Don't do this again, idiot!" And if somebody was hurt, I had to drag myself out of bed to do what I could to repair the damage. Sometimes the purpose of life is cleaning up the mess. I have yet to find a God that was much good at cleaning up messes. <br /><br /><blockquote>I respect those Christians who can think and explain what they believe, what they are doing and why. <br />Fangi</blockquote><br />So do I. They fit very well into the thoughtful, purposeful society that I consider my own. In fact one of my favorite excuses for arriving home at 3am is having been arguing with a Jesuit, or a Jew about God. The purpose being that we all know more about God.J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-53772821752725995002011-01-16T10:53:00.000-08:002017-11-27T12:58:58.136-08:00Educated, Rational Tribalism<br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;I like to think of my society as a tribe of educated, usually university educated, rational people an <a href="http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/search/label/ERSSG">ERSSG</a>. It is by nature diffuse and intimately mixed in with those that are not rational or whose education has been curtailed short of their capability. Education as the tribe views it includes training in critical and rational thought at all levels. The level of achievement is less important than the ability to make rational judgments about important life choices. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;It is my observation that this society does have many tribal characteristics that may separate it from the rest of the world as effectively as a stockade. In this post I will be exploring some of the characteristics of this tribe that clearly differentiate it from other tribes, particularly tribes based on religion, politics, and industry. Like any tribe it has well defined mores, values, and traditions. I will be exploring some of them in this post.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;It is important that absolute performance is not as important as reaching a level of competence available to the child. One of my favorite quotes is "We can't all be first violins in the orchestra, some of us got to push wind through the tuba." Apparently from E.E. "Doc" Smith. An early leader of the tribe. It is significant that one parental unit in the tribe never told a Downs Syndrome child that he was limited or different from the others in his school. They celebrated his mediocre grades and his athletic achievements and he ended up as a highly productive member of the tribe. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Originally intelligent was part of the designation of the tribe, but since absolute levels are not as important to the tribe as good education to whatever level the person is capable of achieving, educated seems more apt. If a person is using the intelligence they have rationally and effectively to improve the welfare of the tribe all is good. The separation from the believers is not so much intelligence but how that intelligence is used.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;I was at Davies Symphony Hall last night sitting in the cheap seats next to a family obviously out of place in the setting. Chit-chat quickly revealed that the youngest daughter was in town for a master class with the musician on stage. The family was obviously uncomfortable with the fact that ":She really likes classical music:" but were determined to give her a chance to follow her muse. They were probably putting a fair dent in the family budget to do so to provide lessons with a world class musician in the rural city. Kudos to that world class musician who was "also an attorney" for carrying the rational educated tribal values to the hinterland. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;What got me thinking about <a href="http://jcarlinbl.blogspot.com/2011/01/ring-speciation.html">ring speciation</a> was a comment by several women medical students that the 3rd year of Medical School was the baby year. There was even pressure on a philosophical non-breeder I know of to get pregnant. Other female academic achievers generally plan on the first baby in their second to last year of their planned scholastic career. While advanced academics and atheism tend to go together, there are many men and women active in the campus churches, who fit into the late parenting end of the Ring.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The ring is driven by the acceptance of women as productive contributors to the intellectual and economic segments of the society. They are no longer viewed as breeding stock and property of men. One of the reasons I identify the other end of the ring as religious, is that the Abrahamic traditions, tend to strongly reinforce the status of women in the society as the property of and subject to the men, their fathers prior to puberty and their husbands, defined as the man who took her virginity. Many of the Abrahamic traditions have involved sexual rules designed to insure the position of women as breeding stock.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp; At the late breeding end of the ring, generally the women are the choosers. Sexual rituals are designed around building the parenting pair bond enabled by female control of contraception. Loss of virginity is largely incidental and no longer the equivalent of betrothal. Sexuality is just part of the dance of long term mate selection, although it seems that casual sex among the late breeding end of the ring is uncommon, as sex is viewed as a relationship building activity by both the men and the women. Biology still rules, but sexual partners are chosen by those aspiring to advanced education with longer term goals in mind than simply satisfying biological drives although those drives still encourage early mate selection although the breeding will be deferred by consent of both parties.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;The negotiation involved in removing the contraceptive is complex, involving child care issues, career support, and generally recognition of the fact that a male's career is generally more flexible than that of the female. I speak largely from experience here; three times I had to play the male MBA card to change careers to accommodate the inflexible career path of my co-parent. I am also seeing more males deferring career building for parenting either in the sense of limiting hours and travel at the cost of career advancement to outright deferral of employment for the child care role. Please note that dissertation completion, is quite compatible with primary parenting and is not viewed by the larger advanced educated society as a career interruption for either gender.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;As you look at the median age of first child for couples with advanced degrees, it is mid to late 20's for the women and much the same for the men. Compare this with the believers, defined in this context as people who adhere to the dogma of their church or mosque with little questioning who generally are parents in their late teens at the latest. Particularly the females have no interest in advanced education unless they didn't get their Mrs. in high school. The men may well go on to advanced education, with mom tagging along but as mom will be using the church as support, the man will be tied there as well. Even well into graduation and career.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The assumption is that the woman will be an economically productive part of the parenting pair and the man will be at least an equal partner in the parenting duties. Current realities in job mobility generally result in the man changing jobs and even careers in support of the woman even stopping out as necessary for parenting emergencies. This is all part of the negotiation that results in the female agreeing to remove the contraceptive. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Neither the man nor the woman will necessarily be celibate prior to the choice to pair up for breeding, although typically the pairing will have occurred long before the breeding is planned. The pair bonding may well be reinforced by contraceptive sex, with or without the benefit of marriage according to the preferences of the pair. In general any teen dalliances will be carefully contraceptive and usually prophylactic. But generally these are rare as part of the preparation for pairing is intense educational and frequently arts and/or athletic achievement to the ability level of the partners generally precluding the intensive party scene. Intelligence is obviously a selection criterion, but effective utilization of available intelligence is respected as well. In rare cases even a challenged person can fit into the group. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;A fundamental value of the tribe is creating a rich learning environment for <b>all</b> children, with intense encouragement, OK, pushing, from the caregivers to make the most out of whatever talents the child demonstrates. One may argue about the "Tiger Mom" (or dad) approach, but the argument is tactical. The strategic goal of full realization of all capabilities of the child is unquestioned. Caregivers will be brutal to all instructors to insure the best possible learning environment is provided for all of the children of the tribe. Schools and instructors will be selected for their ability to provide that learning environment. Other than simply looking at school district real estate values, a quick visit to a PTA meeting will be useful in selecting a school. The caregivers will outnumber the teachers, and will insist on finding out what resources are needed and ways of providing them. An activity club will be evaluated on how fast children move through the levels as well as the skills demonstrated at the elite level. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Child raising and socialization is a joint activity with heavy use of professional child care made possible by the dual incomes of the parents. It is taken for granted that prior to school age the professional aim of the parents will be career building rather than wealth building as child care costs are high. The investment in the children is a given in the ethos of the species as it is expected that children will be high achievers as the parents are. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;Some members of the ERSSG choose not to breed but support the overall welfare of the group in their contribution to the intellectual advancement and overall welfare of the ERSSG through their employment and social activities. Although a mid-life change of mind is common, with a partner from one of the adjacent groups frequently with children chosen to complete the pair. But the partner may have been a misfit in the adjacent group, explaining both the choice to leave the group and the aspiration for the ERSSG.</span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;But even with no kids, not common, the status of the pair bond will be of equals regardless of who is the breadwinner in the sense of more income. </span></span><br /><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;TV, games, and popular entertainment activities are generally ignored in favor of networking intensive dinner and a show with friends or associates. Ballroom dancing, renaissance fairs, and community theater and music are common investments of limited free time.</span></span>J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-64285156968504444722010-12-04T16:48:00.000-08:002011-01-19T19:41:01.770-08:00The Science of Meaning.I will admit that in the limited world of the study of consciousness there are no tools for studying emergent properties of the working of the brain. And by the way I am not arguing the mind is an immaterial thing. It is an overlay on the brain and depends on a working brain for its existence. Once something happens to the brain via toxic substances or other physiological trauma, the mind ceases to work properly. But until scholars of consciousness can provide a reasonable ontological link between brain action and self, other, and fiction, and reliably distinguish between them as a child of 7 or 8 does quite reliably and naturally, we are in the realm of metaphysics not science.<br /><br />Perhaps self generated dualism is the best way to think about the relationship between the brain and the mind. It is true that the mind 'app' can be reduced to material actions of neuron activity, just as any app can be reduced to the the material changes in the state of silicon switches. But the meaning of the app is not found in the relationship of silicon switches, meaning is found in the usefulness of the app to the mind 'app' using it for whatever useful or useless thing the mind finds to do with the app.<br /><br />The meaning of Facebook is not found in the material state of some server farm somewhere, it is found in the way real people can use it to stay connected to people who they may have no material connection with. I have never met in person several friends on Facebook, due to geographic limitations, but I would have no qualms about sharing an extended visit with any of them. Indeed, I have done so on a couple of occasions. (I will admit to be very selective in my friends list.)<br /><br />Similarly the meaningful connection between you and me is not found in the state of the switches at the Silicon Valley and the Minneapolis ends of the fiber optic network, it is the way each of our minds works with the data represented by the states of those switches. Please note that the state of our brains is no more relevant than the state of those switches.<br /><br />Scientists can not think about the issues of mind and meaning as scientists. They just don't have the necessary scientific tools. It remains firmly in the realm of philosophy probably more specifically phenomenology. <br /><br />I can't prove, but suspect, that the brain processes the information about self, other in the real sense of a known other real person, and a fictional character like God made, after all, in the image of self in much the same way neurologically. All have faces, bodies, emotions, needs, likes, dislikes, etc, that I suspect are processed in the same brain spaces dedicated to tracking those things. But somehow a healthy rational mind can keep the differences sorted out correctly and is able to process information derived from each stored source in an appropriate manner. I am skeptical that the scientists will ever be able to distinguish the stored information about, for example God in a believer, from the stored information about self. Yet the mind does this quite reliably most of the time. Although some of the people posting here make one wonder about how reliable the mind is in this function.J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-24703235480887919512010-05-08T21:53:00.000-07:002010-05-09T16:22:33.711-07:00Thinking about Role ModelsAdult morality is basically the ability to choose ones group and abide by the moral standards it sets up. Particularly the standards for role modeling. As we are seeing daily: If your group is sport you expect your sport heroes to be good role models and woe be to the used-to-be hero that falls short in role model behavior. They might redeem their hero status by their talent, but it will always have the asterisk hesh is a great athlete* *but hesh is an asshole.<br /><br />In politics and religion the role model issues are even more important.<br /><br />I learned the importance of role modeling early, as one of my favorite musicians was an asshole, and people in my group would judge his music by his behavior. The implicit message was that my society expected every member to be an exemplary role model, and achievements would be judged as much by the role modeling as by the achievement itself. This drastically changes the importance of moral behavior, at least in my society which is self selected to be intelligent, rational, well educated, and achievement oriented. And damn few of us get our moral behavior from God.<br /><br /><br />If you have interacted with another human favorably in the course of your life, that is made that person's life on this earth a little more comfortable or pleasant, and that person 'Pays it Forward' in Heinlein's words, the ripple is potentially infinite. I would rather bet on that infinity than some God rescuing some part of me to endure in some wonderful place somewhen if I have said the right prayers and chosen the right God.<br /><br />Jesus while he was human said 'Love your neighbor [the Samaritan] as yourself.' His disciples and perhaps even the scribe that asked the question paid it forward and today one could argue that it makes Jesus immortal whether or not you believe the God myth.<br /><br />Not all of us can have that big an impact, but if we can make the world just a little better for those around us, I think we have paid our dues for being alive and our importance and value will survive.J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-31125941200967789542010-05-08T21:17:00.001-07:002016-09-06T10:34:44.182-07:00Thinking about MoralityWhile you are equal, the societies to which you belong are different. Abner will judge kodiacman by the standards of the educated atheist society of which he is a part. Kodiacman may very well say that God does not approve of the educated atheist society, or at least the atheist part, and in effect say 'Throw Abner to the wolves.' Abner will probably like Brer Rabbit say 'Don't throw me into that briar patch full of atheist chemists.' And you both will walk away feeling virtuous and filled with righteousness for making the correct moral judgment."<br /><br />Moral authority is always a segment of the society of which the person is a part. Or depending on your definition of society, it may be the local society, the church, the community, or a self chosen community of peers. None of which have supreme authority, not even the church or God.<br /><br />By calling another 'evil' a person is basically saying that the behavior is unacceptable for membership in the relevant society. In effect saying that if the behavior continues we, the society, will 'throw you to the wolves' and give no protection or benefits from belonging to the society. The outsider may find a society that tolerates the evil behavior, and may even encourage it, in which case there may be a clash of societies up to and including warfare if the evil is deemed onerous enough. Please note that the 'evil' society probably does not view itself as evil, and may in fact consider all other societies evil. It may even base this on a particular God belief, but even that is not absolute.<br /><br />As an example many societies consider treating women as property and subjugating them to some relevant male to be evil. There are other societies that say this is requirement of God. I would challenge anyone to show either view is a supreme moral edict.<br /><br />Substantive lying to anybody is wrong. It injures the other and is a disaster for self image. One can't hurt self or society much more grievously.<br /><br />Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.<br /><br />Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."<br /><br />Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing.<br /><br />A much more useful way of looking at things is the source of the constraints on behavior that we choose to accept. This assumes that unconstrained choice is the natural state of human cognition, and it is the constraints on acting out the choices which are the important considerations.<br /><br />This changes the whole picture. Free will is not a gift or an option it is the natural state of the human mind. We can and do think about all sorts of behaviors that might be expressed. However, as a part of being socialized as a child and to a lesser extent as an adult member of a society, and perhaps partly instinctual as a social animal, there are certain behaviors that may not be expressed. Once internalized as a constraint, we have no 'free will' to express the behavior. At the very least our self-image as a moral and ethical member of our society will prevent the expression of the thought as behavior. Of course fear of Hell or jail may reinforce the decision. but ultimately it is the internalization of the constraint which determines the control of the behavior. Free will has nothing at all to do with it.<br /><br />The problem that is being ignored by all is that morals are neither personal nor universal. Morals are derived from the local society that one considers herm own, and reflect values that benefit that society from the individual working out and therefore from the society back to the individual. If the society is God based then morals will come from God as interpreted by that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony that speaks for God. If the society is not God based, say a typical University community, the morals are no less stringent and are probably more strictly enforced as there is no get out of Hell jail free card, or plagiarism is OK if you don't get caught by the prof card.<br /><br />Compared to a high level university the typical religion is a group of moral slackers even if they get their morals direct from God. The GOOHF card of the Cross can excuse a lot of sin.<br /><br />True they abide by the same rules, but the rules are fundamental not God. In other words God has no choice but promote rules that are good for the society of believers, and by and large those rules would be good for any society. Do not lie, cheat, steal, kill, respect authority beginning with parents and going on from there, to God if religious, to other authorities worthy of respect if not."<br /><br />The big differences of course are in the "control morality." That morality that is use to control the sheeple. Paul found the efficacy of sexual morality for paternalistic control, and Christianity has gone downhill from there. A rational sexual morality is necessarily based on the welfare of the family whatever form that takes. The pair bond seems nearly universal in nature and seems to be the most workable sexual morality in humans. That is morality that strengthens and preserves the pair bond seems best for all social groupings.<br /><br />Sorry. The dark side, the yang, the masculine, are all socially imposed on the natural instinctual behaviors that must be controlled to fit properly into a specific society. Many societies reinforce natural behaviors in ways that another society might consider dysfunctional, but within the society they are controlled expressions of natural behavior. The difference between a benevolent pastoral leader and an exploiter of herm followers is not that one is responding to a genetic instinct to lead benevolently, and the other to an exploitation gene. The both are responding to a natural genetic drive to alpha status for those who can and follower stats for those who can't. The only difference is that both leaders have different control of their alpha instinctual behavior. Historically this control has been mediated by religious beliefs, a powerful social control force, both for good and for evil, at least by my society's standards, but as Heinlein noted, 'Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes...' and generally not in the eyes of his local society. I am quite sure that Torquemada and his fellow priests were filled with satisfaction for doing God's will indeed they gave themselves the title of 'Protector of the Faith' which has persisted to the present day. One wonders sometimes however, just what faith it is that the protector is protecting?<br /><br />Good and evil are socially defined concepts. Generally what supports and protects the social unit is good, and that which disturbs it is evil. I find evil much more of a problem than good, as scientific studies of social animals find almost no evidence of willful disturbance of the group. Even among social predators, while the prey may find them evil, within the group they are extremely careful of each other, even the lower status members of the group. The low status members may get the tough and dangerous jobs in the hunt but if they are hurt they will be supported by the group.<br /><br />As I have mentioned before it takes a religious leader to create the 'us vs. them' that permits evil in a social animal. Other humans learned from the religious leaders, so the evil is spread.J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-22255797636836802472010-05-08T21:04:00.000-07:002011-02-27T18:38:27.067-08:00Thinking about Moral DevelopmentA recent study of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=7&hpw">morality in infants</a> found that for toddlers even something as trivial as T-shirt colors can be a moral issue. The within-group preferences are the basis of morality as in "Our T-shirt colors are good, yours are bad. This observation is an early indication that social groups are the basis of human morality and certainly part of our genetic moral imprinting.<br /> <br />This is why it is so important to pick your culture very carefully: A child will be necessarily be imprinted with the memes of his parents and their Social Support Group (SSG). It is called socialization and is critical if the child is to survive to puberty. This is in fact nature's plan if a cold cruel indifferent universe can have a plan. It probably would be better to say this is the implicit plan of the generations of social animals that preceded us. It in critical for a human to be a part of a tribe. A lone human is a dead human in the natural world. Nature, or more precisely the human genome has provided an escape hatch in the adolescent rebellion phase of any normally intelligent child. And if the child is exposed to other tribes as many modern children are in school, the rebellious child may find a better (or worse) tribe to associate with.<br /><br />Obviously as a child choosing a culture is a pipe dream, but as an adult anticipating reproducing the SSG that you will provide for your child will determine whether the child is warped into some form of aberration or becomes a useful, productive contributor to the larger society.<br /><br />Religions can be acceptable SSGs but again it is important to choose, if you can, a religion that is aware of and trying to be a part of the larger society. Many are not, and treat the larger society as hostile and dangerous, even to the point of home schooling or religious schooling to keep the child warped into the aberrant group. These <a href="http://jcarlinbl.blogspot.com/2011/01/ring-speciation.html">UFSSGs</a> may be more adaptive from an evolutionary perspective, they breed enough, but I certainly hope not. <br /><br />The society in which I was brought up acceptance and participation in the society was determined not by a belief system, but by how one treated the others who were a part of it. There were many religions represented, mainly Christians, but some Jews and some of no discernible religion. The earliest moral lessons I remember were lessons on stealing and fair value exchange issues. Starting at about 5 or 6. It was not a matter of bad or good, but one of trust. One had to build a trustworthy reputation and it was easy to destroy it. Examples of untrustworthy people were all around and were not considered one of 'us' whoever 'us' was.<br /><br />It is important that there never was a 'them.' The rest of the world was simply not 'Our kind of people.' The different strokes for different folks was the attitude that was basic to my upbringing. The next door neighbors were Catholic in everything they did. It was clear that they were not one of 'us.' They were good people, nice neighbors, the kids were acceptable playmates, but they didn't share the values that defined 'us.' The first time I heard the second great commandment I knew that Jesus was talking about my next door neighbor.<br /><br />It would probably be easier not to work on righteousness and nail my shadow to the cross, but that doesn't work for me. Christ has nothing to do with my behavior or my relationships with other people. He is not responsible for any injury I might inflict on them and neither is Adam. The arrow of responsibility is very short and it points right at me. I think all this work makes me a better member of my chosen society both as an actor and as a role model. It is my effect on my society today, in this life that is important to me. No more, and no less.<br />The UU youth group was an important influence in my moral development. I was a regional officer and went to national conventions where supervision of our moral behavior was strictly peer driven. There were no rules, no belief systems, and yet we had to function as a coherent group in spite of radically different views on everything from God to sexuality. I learned to respect the rules and limits of others without internalizing them. I learned to communicate my rules and limits without projecting them on others. This was fairly easy with respect to God, in spite of my unusual for the time overt atheism, but the sexuality issues as you might expect in a group of horny teens with no rules except respect for your partner made for some interesting times. Further, deponent sayeth not.<br /><br />My parents' relationship lasted more than half a century, the usual bumps and frictions, but in general I would agree that their relationship was generally good and a stable base for my development as a moral person. <br /><br />My mother was an intelligent, independent, and strong woman, and the iconic ancestor was similar. Not domineering as many such women can be, but not submissive either. She knew she was equal to anybody else. Not better, but no worse. My older sisters who were important in my early life inherited these traits. One might say I had no experience with other types of women or at least didn't notice other types. My father was an equal partner in my parenting and in his marriage, but traditional gender role models were basically ignored.<br /><br />I am sure siblings and playmates were caught out and instructed on stealing, but as usual my own burning ears were what made me learn. But relevant to the shadow topic, it was always behavior correction. "We" don't do that kind of thing. Never "That is bad," and absolutely never "You are bad." I don't remember "bad" as part of my parents' vocabulary.<br /><br />As I remember it sharing was a part of playing with toys. Even my teddy bear which for a while was a constant companion was shared. I vaguely remember a kind of a round dance game where the teddy bear danced with everybody.<br /><br />The "We" in all of it was what "We" considered to be an elite society. One in which each person was expected to be knowledgeable, thoughtful, responsible, mannerly, fun to be with, and to do their chores diligently and without direction or complaint. There were "Others" some of whom were part of a different elite, and some who were definitely less than elite.<br /><br /><br />As I grew up I moved in a variety of groups, each with different values and it was important to be aware of those values and at least know why I violated some of them. In general because they conflicted with other values that I considered more important. As an example many of the groups I participated in due to athletics had a rather crude sexual morality. I was brought up to consider sexuality was a relationship first issue. The love 'em and leave 'em of the athletic and cheer leading world was of no interest to me.<br /><br />But in all cases I was intensely aware of the fact that there was only one person in the world that was responsible for any hurt feelings or worse that I caused, and that was me. No confession booth, no cross to nail things to, just me. I couldn't even blame my parents, they would just laugh at me and say you got yourself into this, lets see how you get yourself out. This does not mean they were not supportive or helpful, but it was my problem not theirs.<br /><br />In high school and college I played with the big dogs in a bunch of packs, moving smoothly between them as necessary. The mores of each pack were different. The team sports had one, the individual sport group had another. The choral groups another. The science geeks a different one. The UU youth was wildly different. In college the philosophy and religion group yet another but basically a continuation of the UU youth. The social and party group, there was only one I could afford to play with, was again quite different.<br /><br />This was in no way a multiple role issue. Just like religions all groups had things that contributed to my character development. Those that were useful I adopted, but I never felt the need to "buy into the group package." At my college, the student football cheering section was a mandatory Saturday afternoon social function. I was not particularly interested in spectator sports, and the team sucked. But drinking the frozen orange drink, and socializing with friends, many of which shared my distaste for the game and the team was worth my time and energy. The football enthusiasts who cheered each half way decent play, and booed the refs, were part of the group, but I did not share their enthusiasm, just their company.<br /><br />In order to work well in all these groups I had to be aware of the mores and how I would respond to them. No subconscious responses allowed, they would bite me on the rear cheek every time. I like to think that I integrated the best of all those groups into a coherent self image. The lessons from all those groups have served me well as a productive adult responsible for my own life. I have totally changed the direction of my life three times, each time moving into a completely different work and life style. It was very useful to be able to join a group as an observer and know how to spot the important things for being a part of the group.<br /><br />Golf was very instructive for me in the mores department. Very early I was a competent golfer thanks to an ex pro instructor in my father. It is ridiculously easy to cheat in golf. But choosing to do so even in a practice round will very quickly insure that you will never get a money round. There is no way to repair the damage to the reputation of a golfer that cheats. Further it is assumed that a golfer that cheats in golf will cheat whenever hesh thinks hesh can get away with it. Politicians always cheat in golf.<br /><br />I have no delusions of perfection but I frequently thank those, mostly dead now, that brought me up without a shadow and taught me how not to internalize shadow making criticism. I thank them not for them, but for me. I can still put names to those who taught critical lessons in responsibility. If someone tells me I screwed up, I have two choices, I can say yes, I did, and do what I can to repair the damage, or I can 'consider the source' and say "No it is your problem, I don't need to even consider it, and I certainly don't need to make it my problem."<br /><br />I actually strive to achieve perfection in my ethical behavior and my moral relationships. It is not really that hard as all moral and ethical behavior is considered, and misjudging another's reaction is technically their problem not mine, although perfection would be taking that into consideration.<br /><br />Since I have neither a shadow nor a God to blame for any transgressions, and the arrow of responsibility always points back to me, I try not to be willfully wrong in any situation. I do not always succeed sometimes due to a social misunderstanding, sometimes a simple screw up. But in any case I am the damage repair crew. That does make thinking about what one is doing a lot more important.<br /><br />Others may try to impose a shadow on me but I do not need to accept its existence simply because someone says it is there. Any more than I need to accept the fundie's assertion that I am a sinner because all people are sinners. If the fundie thinks hesh can act out herm uncontrolled basic instincts in a socially dysfunctional manner because everybody is a sinner, and hesh gets to nail herm acting out to the cross and its OK because the cross is available to all sinners, we have total control by the church. Except I am not a sinner, and I can call herm on herm dysfunctional actions with a clear conscience because I control my possibly dysfunctional actions openly and consciously. I don't always succeed, but it isn't because sin made me do it, or my shadow burst out, it was because I failed. No one else. Not mom, not the preacher, not God, not the Devil. It was J'Carlin and no one else. If it needs fixing I fix it."J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-35752141122875207792010-03-20T21:32:00.000-07:002010-04-18T14:55:54.234-07:00Children and Jung's Shadow bag<a href="http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43991/22656565/Owning_Your_Own_Shadow?pg=14">Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet</a><br /><br /><blockquote>When we were one or two years old we had what we might visualize as a 360-degree personality. Energy radiated out from all parts of our body and all parts of our psyche. A child running is a living globe of energy. We had a ball of energy, all right; but one day we noticed that our parents didn't like certain parts of the ball. They said things like: 'Can't you be still?' Or 'it isn't nice to try and kill your brother.<br />Robert Bly via Wendyness</blockquote> <br />But if our parents weren't obsessed with sin and badness and had said "Your activity is annoying me, would you take it elsewhere, or control it to please me?" instead of "ADD is sick, oops Can't you be still?" If they said "Your brother will hurt just like you do when hit, can you consider his feelings?" For the adults that is use your natural empathy to identify with your potentially hurt brother? Instead of "It is sin to try to kill your brother." Intervention may be necessary, but it is not necessary to dump a bunch of <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=2&discussionID=326515&messages_per_page=2">BS</a> into the kid's bag during the intervention.<br /><br />In the interventions it is not a necessary or even desirable to dump negative self-worth into the shadow bag. The child must learn to control antisocial behavior which may be driven by powerful instinctual drives, self protection, fear of strangers, and abandonment by significant others in one's society. The child must also learn to reinforce the equally powerful instinctive social drives, respect for mentors starting with the parents, empathy, respect for all in one's chosen society, and others. But this must not be a shadow function but intelligently reinforced for the benefit of the child. Parents must be as careful of the thou shalts as they are of the shalt nots, so that the child is not trapped into cliques or beguiled by a charismatic but inimical leader either in business or in religion. In this way the child consciously builds a cultural self that will fit in with the social milieu of his chosen society, initially that of herm parents, but ultimately that which will be selected as a result of adolescent choices and occupational preparation and selection. <br /><br />The cultural self must be managed by an aware and active consciousness managing all relevant social interactions. Will hesh do it perfectly, never making a mistake, of course not. Mistakes are how we learn especially in social situations. For a properly raised child, whose parents and mentors made the child aware of the reasons for interventions to prevent harm to self and others, the unconscious and especially a hidden unconscious (shadow) will have no place in the behavior of the adult. <br /><br />Thus we give children control over their actions and in effect to relegate the subconscious to the trivial. Body regulation, habits, manners, and peripheral awareness for interesting things to bring to the conscious attention of the mind. I threw manners in as a late addition, I don't think they can be called shadow as they are necessary cultural conditioning. Manners are, if anything, a subconscious benevolence to identify one as a properly socialized member of the society.<br /><br />The issue is not uncontrolled actions, but how the control over actions is established. I put manners in as a late addition to subconscious control, but perhaps they can be used as a illustration of what I mean. Good manners are essential to fitting in to ones society. As an example, good manners has been defined as the noise you don't make while eating your soup. This needs to be unconscious, we can't worry about every spoonful of soup we eat. But manners can be in the shadow, or in the volitional unconscious, simply by the way we are taught them.<br /><br />"Slurping your soup is crude" that is only a crude person slurps soup, puts eating soup in the shadow. An inadvertent slurp reinforces the idea that the person is crude and not socially acceptable, whether or not it is commented on.<br /><br />An alternative is "Slurping your soup is annoying to mommy" and by extension to others. An inadvertent slurp now generates an apology at least mentally if not spoken, with no effect on self image. Eating soup is still managed by the unconscious and very strictly I would add to the point of nausea for violation, but the apology rather than shadow pain can make all the difference in solving a manners issue. See <a href="http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2009/11/too-big-for-fork.html">Too Big for a Fork</a> for an amusing example. If it were a shadow issue I would have been between a rock and a hard place. I could have been a rude guest and refused the food, or I could have been a barbarian and chewed the meat off the fork."<br /><br />Wouldn't it be nice to be 25 with an empty bag? It can be done. As noted above, proper socialization without input into the shadow bag by parents and early mentors is critical, as is training to consciously accept or reject social precepts. That way when people try to dump BS into your bag simply say "I don't need that. I can control that behavior, or do it where it won't annoy other people. Or I can choose to comply with this social directive. Normally the conscious choice would be to so comply, but the compliance would be voluntary and not shadow driven.” This is known as being socially responsible. Kids learn it naturally unless people dump BS into their bag.<br /><br />If people weren't loaded up with BS from the time they were 2 the shrinks and the preachers wouldn't have anything to work with. One of the most important things I learned early in life was the difference between "You are bad" and "Your behavior needs better control." I also learned very early that "You are bad" must for my own wellness be interpreted as "Fix your behavior." Fortunately I was encouraged to do so by my atheist parents, well technically Unitarian, I don't even know how they viewed God, but God and sin were not a part of my life growing up. As a result I don't have a bag full of BS to deal with particularly the BS about what I am. Contrary to popular belief this is neither unusual nor unbelievable. <br /> <br />When that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony tries to dump his BS into my bag, I simply tell him that my BS bag has no bottom, and herm BS means nothing to me. Hesh will usually then scream "God will send you to Hell sinner!" and I will smile nicely and say "Hesh may try if Hesh wishes, but I doubt Hesh would as I am not a sinner. My BS bag is empty."<br /><br />I am not unconscious. It is not part of what I am. I was brought up to be responsible for all of my actions conscious or not, and therefore had to be aware of unconscious, read instinctive, reactions and control them. It was not hard, I never was indoctrinated that my instinctive reactions were bad, just that they needed to be controlled for moral, social living.<br /><br />In the early years events frequently get stuffed into the unconscious shadow by parents and mentors whose shadow has been carefully nurtured by their parents and mentors' belief system or culture.<br /><br />Perhaps, but if you break the religious leash on the dark side, you may find that it is relatively easily controlled if not completely eliminated. The first step is to realize that almost all people are good people, most importantly yourself. That way when the religious guru or child psychiatrist tries to help you control the dark side, you may properly ask what dark side? The guru will say the dark side we all have, and you can properly say speak for yourself. Depending on the religion the guru will say all are sinners, or all have the yin and the yang, and you have every right to use the tiresome atheist mantra: Prove it. The guru is making a positive assertion and the default is that it is false. Pointing to the occasional bad guy doesn't cut it. You may properly ask to show your dark side, hesh did say all after all.<br /><br />A person starts with total control over herm soul. It has no sides or points.. It is just a working reflection of social instincts as you have learned to control them. Your parents and family will normally help you shape it into the benevolent and beneficent soul that is your birthright. Don't sell it to the devil guru who will inevitably shape it to herm needs, not yours."<br /><br />The most pernicious result of ceding the soul to religions is that they then get to define it any way they want to, and you can bet your tithe that it won't be for the benefit of the parishioners. It will always have the dark side that God or the guru will have to help you manage. And managing it means making you worry about it all the time as if it were really a part of the natural soul. It isn't.<br /><br />If humans were evolved with a dark side to the soul they would have joined the rest of the hominids in extinction. Mom and the other caregivers including of course Fulghum's Kindergarten teacher, will guide the development of the soul in socially integrative, benign, empathetic, loving ways. Unfortunately the social milieu historically has included religious indoctrination which includes hijacking the soul for the benefit of the shaman.<br /><br />It is critical that when one shucks ones milk church, one pulls one's soul out and shucks the dark side that was indoctrinated right along with the need for the God of the milk church. <br /><br />As an example from the hot topic on this thread, I was never indoctrinated that my sexual impulses were bad or 'dirty.' I was, however, strongly indoctrinated that if the Girl Scout was not similarly inclined or I was not prepared and ready to accept the consequences of my instinctual action, I had better cause her to cry and walk out the door, or cause myself to say "Oh, shit. Oh well, there will be another who will be similarly inclined."<br /><br />All of which have happened to me. As well as similar situations where we were both willing and eager, but not ready for the expected consequences. In one case purely psychological consequences. As a normal heterosexual male, in normal heterosexual social activities, I have had all the usual opportunities, and temptations, but in general according to my standards I behaved morally rather than instinctively. I have no regrets about missed opportunities, I think I chose wisely to miss them. But it was not denying my dark side. It was controlling my life. <br /><br />One of the reasons I have found God dysfunctional is some of the natural tendencies encouraged by God are not useful in my society. Fear of strangers or people different from me is a natural tendency that at one time was quite useful. It is no longer so. As Oscar Hammerstein wrote in South Pacific<br /><br /> You've got to be taught before it's too late.<br /> Before you are six or seven or eight.<br /> To hate all the people your relatives hate.<br /><br />You won't do it naturally, you may naturally fear strangers, but this fear is not bad or dark or shadowy, you have to be taught that the fear is hate which is bad, and dark and a shadow. But someone had to teach you." <br /><br /><br />While many autonomous processes don't need to rise to the level of consciousness to function, they are not immune to conscious manipulation. Placebos as an example.<br /><br />"However, one can be 100% conscious of behavior influencing activities of the mind/brain. The fact that you believe Jungian therapy can give you some control over the shadow is evidence that such control is possible. The real question is what belief system, and it takes a belief system to mask behavior influencing activities from the consciousness, causes the shadow? In a different post you noted that touching yourself 'there' is bad or something like that. Why? Touching yourself 'there' is natural. See any dog. What belief system other one that is trying to control your sexuality would suggest such an unnatural attitude?"<br /><br />It is the control over sexuality and other natural human behaviors like following the leader, among others that gives religion its power for good and for abuse. The control over sexual expression was used as the dominant sin expression by Paul. See Romans 1.<br /><br />If the natural sexual expressions as seen in our simian relatives were free to be expressed by humans, one would see a considerably different human evolutionary pattern. I suspect that the two female family structure would be dominant, with the women choosing mates from the males based dominance and power to provide a stable society and for their intelligence and ability to provide a suitable dowry for the anticipated child. The men would still play their political power games not for genetic continuity but for dominance over the social structures supporting the female dominated reproductive needs for the society. The harem would be a self chosen group adhering to the rich, intelligent and powerful. Low status men would probably touch themselves "there" a lot. <br /><br />I do not deny either sin or shadow. Both are integral components of powerful and useful belief systems. But the proposition that either necessarily applies to me requires substantial and significant support to overcome my reasoned denial. You may scream until you are blue in the face that I am a sinner, but until you can provide independent proof that I am intrinsically a sinful person your screaming is so much noise in a thunderstorm. It doesn't help to show that I did something bad, you must show that I did something bad because of sinfulness. And by the way something you think is bad or sinful has no relevance to the discussion.<br /> <br />Genetic behaviors are shadow only when someone normally a shaman tells us they are bad, or evil, or sin and we must suppress them. If we see them as natural, powerful drivers of achievement, that must be controlled, not suppressed, we can use them efficiently to achieve desired ends.<br /><br />If they control us, as they will if suppressed, then they normally will be expressed dysfunctionally as you note above. The terms you use above are shadow terms for natural genetic behaviors. Displaying feelings about others is the way we create social bonds with those we wish to include in our social group. But controlled expression is necessary for social survival, which in many cases means physical survival. Take lust as an example. It is a powerful mammalian drive to reproduce the species. It is absolutely necessary to be able to indicate to a member of the opposite sex that you find them sexually attractive. If you repress it as sin you end up with the young adult party where all get drunk to lose their repressions and many end up in bed, or on the couch or on the floor. If one is aware of the power of lust one can take appropriate control measures to make sure it serves one's needs, rather than the mammalian need to reproduce.<br /><br />It is like a powerful engine in a car. No less of a safety maven than Ralph Nader said 'Power is safety.' But put that power in the hands of a kid whose competitive drive is a suppressed sin, and you have an accident looking for a spot marked X.<br /><br />This is not to say that control of powerful instincts is easy, or that it is always successful but awareness is critical to control. Knowing the capabilities of the double-bitted ax is a key to using it safely and effectively." <br /><br />"I do not argue that perhaps most people believe in the dark side of humanity. I suspect this is a result of the prevailing Pauline concept of universal sinfulness. When you are taught from a young age that you are a miserable sinner and require salvation it is easy to internalize the concept of sin or a dark side. The trick it to understand Paul's theology, reject it rationally, and look around at the people you know. How many of them could you even identify what their dark side consisted of?"<br /><br />For me this is the most devastating legacy of Paul's sales pitch. And why I find Romans 1 to be the most crippling book in the whole bible. It is a litany of all the human impulses that must be controlled to be sure, but are not inherent in all or even most. And yet one has this peroration that tries to rope everybody into the sinner category so Paul can later sell his savior. And guess what? If you give the church the child till he is 10 you will have a child with an internalized sinful nature with a dark side that he must find salvation for. He can reject the church, and even God. But the dark side remains. If only people could internalize "I am a good kid. God doesn't make junk." If only Paul had.<br /><br />I do not have a sinful nature nor a shadow. I have a very well developed sense of what natural tendencies I have to control to assume a beneficial role in my chosen society, but those natural tendencies are not dark, or bad, or evil, they are simply not useful in an intelligent cosmopolitan society.J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575738210696220458.post-9522857898036559552010-03-05T21:45:00.000-08:002013-04-11T17:12:21.454-07:00Thinking about SynchronyI would like a scientific explanation of how a top level string quartet manages the rubato, retards, fermatas, and other musical effects to produce a performance that can make a listener cry, or in one case of a <span style="font-style: italic;">quatuor pour le fin du temps</span> sob uncontrollably. Or how a listener can control the attacks of a professional Rock band. All of which I have personally observed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrnDRJPSC5k">Or explain</a><br /><br /><blockquote>With a dramatic bow of pianist Nobuyuki Tsujii’s head, rich sounds of the piano, violins, cello and viola broke the concert hall silence as he and a string quartet played Schumann’s Piano Quintet in E-flat major, Op. 44.<br /><br />The standing ovation lasted nearly five minutes, so long that the 20-year-old from Japan returned to the stage twice to bow, grinning from ear to ear.<br /><br />The audience may have loved Friday’s performance, but not everyone may have known its significance. Tsujii—who was born blind—had to figure out how to cue the other musicians. That was especially important with the Schumann piece, because all instruments must start playing simultaneously in the first movement.</blockquote><br />Yeah, sure. The quartet all mentally counted the 3472 microseconds from when his blind eyes crossed the horizontal and they all came in on the 3473rd. There was something else going on here. The leader, in this case Tsujii caused the syncing of the brain waves of the quintet so they could all attack at the same instant. A trained human ear can hear at least millisecond differences in the attack of stringed instruments. With a good ensemble it never does.<br /><br />As noted previously this phenomenon of 'knowing when to attack' and following unpredictable tempo modifications is second nature to ensemble musicians. It is not unusual for ensemble musicians especially in rehearsal to be concentrating on the score, and yet still follow the subtle tempo changes that constitute the music. <br /><br />I have experienced and seen the synchronization and its failures. I attended a Faure <i>Requiem</i> performance in which the famous conductor for some reason was not into the performance. The stick was right on the money. The chorus was all over the bar line. I had the privilege of performing with Robert Shaw, and there is no way to be out of sync. Somehow, one always knows exactly when to come in. The concentration he puts into a rehearsal and a performance suggests an athlete. A face towel is standard equipment and is changed at every opportunity. He is not an active conductor, so the effort is all mental. I performed the <i>Missa Solemnis</i> under his baton, and there is no way to do the <i>Et Vitam</i> fugue at the tempo he takes it by watching the stick. There is just too much going on. I will admit to the possibility of learning to count microseconds in the rehearsal, but I wouldn't bet on it. The most logical explanation is that Shaw mentally cues every entrance and the chorus and orchestra is synced in enjoying the ride. <br /><br />A relevant data point can be found at <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=musicians-brains-keep-time--with-on-2009-03-16">SciAm report</a> states that syncing with the metronome, at the initial attack, and in difficult rhythmic passages the measured brain waves of two unacquainted guitarists in 8 trials were synced. <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/03/this-is-your-br.html">A popular report</a> of follow on research by Max Plank Institute touches on many of the synchronies explored in this post.&nbsp; <br /><br />I will stipulate that the scientists who did the SciAm study see nothing in their results that requires an explanation which goes beyond normal brain events understood in biochemical or information processing terms. It would be quite beyond the experimental design to explain the mechanism of the synchrony. The synchrony was of course biochemical and in the information processing functions of the brains of the musicians. That is what they could measure. Like the drunk under the street light looking for lost car keys, science can only look where they have light to see. All the scientists could do was note that the synchrony existed. They could not publish the mechanism of the synchrony even if they speculated on it. At this point it is not science. That does not mean that the mechanism for the synchrony does not exist, it is just in the class of things beyond the measurable world of science.'<br /><br />I think the secret of good ensemble synchronization is unconducted chamber work either choral or instrumental. And since instrumental chamber music is required of all pro level instrumentalists but not choral singers I suspect instrumental musicians are better at syncing up.<br /><br />Synchrony of mental processes goes far beyond the music world. I have seen a pairs figure skater 'stumble' in a blind maneuver but be perfectly in sync with herm partner at the rejoin move which was also blind. I would submit that the skeptics have the burden of proof that the rejoin was based on anything but brain wave sync of unexplained communication channel. Not incidentally, they were out of sync with the music which was one of the reasons I noticed it.<br /><br />I personally have 'researched' the reaction time bill drop bar bet. That is if you catch the bill when I drop it it is yours. Catcher's thumb and finger over the portrait. A false grab means the catcher owes the dropper the bill. Reaction time says the money is in the bank. I was demonstrating this bet with a 'fresh squeeze' who eventually became my wife. She caught the bill every time. Fingers right on the portrait usually. We tried this with a wall between us bill in a doorway and the only way I could beat her was randomizing my drop. If I so much as thought about dropping it I lost. This was witnessed by a fairly large group of peers, who were able to observe a randomized trial by a finger signal out of sight of all but the control observer. <br /><br /><blockquote>What's to explain about mirror neurons, religious perceptions God or mental influence on others? At least in the sense that you have a better explanation for us?<br />Blü</blockquote><br />How they work. I don't have any explanation of how they work. Just the observation that they do work. I have a speculation that the spinal chord is a brain wave detector, and particularly with respect to motor nerve stimulus can provide the observed synchrony, as in the movement of a school of fish in response to a predator. Whether it can provide higher function synchrony is much more speculative, but it explains some unexplainable observations, including mirror neuron response, and group perceptions of God.<br /><br />I am always amused by the way scientists conveniently ignore things like reaction time and speed of pressure wave transmission in water in trying to explain the unexplainable synchrony. But currently ESP is a grant killer on par with Creation Science, so it will take a lot of 'it just works' scientific evidence to force investigation of the mechanisms.<br /><br />I have no dog in the fight. I don't believe in skepticism. Science always catches up and disproves belief systems contrary to fact. It will probably take a remote fMRI to catch a group of musicians, or a group of believers syncing up brain waves to do what is necessary. <br /><br />An interesting experiment was suggested recently, which is to put a chamber ensemble in individual Faraday cages and see if they can play together. Passing the theme seamlessly from one instrument to another. Tracking rubato and expression as a unit, in short make music. <br /><br />I have personally experienced, or perhaps imagined, all of the synchronies mentioned including the presence of God in a Catholic service. I can only speculate on the mechanism(s). Perhaps in the Catholic service I had a temporal lobe brain fart. Everything is on the table. But it was a physical action, genuflection, that triggered the connection with the congregation or whatever it was. I wouldn't take psychic phenomena off the table. It would have to be right up there with the brain fart. I don't have a clue as to how it worked. And as I had no previous experience of God, the feeling was of a presence like another person as described by unbelievers in the God Helmet experiment. But it definitely was not a person in the church, not even the priest. The closest analogy I can muster is the feeling I had in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.<br /><br />I think the analogy is apt. I have seen many a noisy group of school children fall dead silent as they cross the threshold of the memorial. I don't think it is anything supernatural, just a feeling of awe and reverence generated by those in the memorial. Is it psychic? A brain fart? Mirror neurons compelling awe and reverence? I don't think science dares to have a clue as to the mechanism. At this point it can just add a data point to the unexplained barrel."J'Carlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11811626573349505654noreply@blogger.com0